More

Coal Ash Dams Are A Major Hazard Coal-State Politicians Want To Ignore

Coal Ash Dams

Posted: 12/14/11 08:07 PM ET

Just days before the three-year anniversary of the devastating dike failure at the Tennessee Valley Authority's Kingston Fossil Plant, the Environmental Protection Agency still has little authority to regulate the storage of toxic coal ash produced as a byproduct of coal power. A new report released Tuesday shows coal ash's harmful environmental effects are more widespread than previously understood.

Meanwhile, a bill proposed by a bipartisan coalition of coal-state senators would strip away the federal government's power to do anything about it.

The new report from the nonprofit Environmental Integrity Project identified 19 coal ash dump sites in nine states where heavy concentrations of arsenic, boron, manganese and other pollutants contaminate the groundwater nearby.

At some of those sites, the EPA had noted only "potential" contamination, but when the EIP did its own tests, it found chemicals had leached into the ground.

Some coal ash is stored as a solid. But a "hell of a lot" of the coal ash produced in the United States is stored in containment ponds like the one that failed so horribly in Tennessee, according to Jeff Stant, director of the EIP's coal combustion waste initiative.

At the Kingston Fossil Plant, some 1.1 billion gallons of coal fly ash slurry spread across 300 acres of land when a dike broke in December 2008. Nobody was hurt, but the total cleanup cost could run to $1.2 billion.

Stant estimated that somewhere between 60 and 70 million tons of coal ash a year winds up as slurry in containment ponds.

"There are many high-hazard dams, the ones that pose the greatest hazard to human life ... worse than the Kingston dam in terms of the danger it imposes," said Stant. "And there are a whole bunch of dams where the maintenance is rated poor by the EPA," he added.

When power plants burn coal, they generate enormous quantities of ash, which must then be stored or recycled. Electric utilities often choose the cheapest course of action, turning the ash into a slurry and storing it in vast ponds.

The ponds must be contained by dams, levees or dikes. But no single agency oversees dam safety in the United States. Instead, that authority is left up to a hodgepodge of state and federal regulators. Some states do no regular dam safety inspections, and one state (Alabama) has no dam safety program at all.

"Most states do not require that dams be inspected or even be built and certified by engineers," Stant said.

And that's a big problem, said Lisa Evans, a lawyer for Earthjustice. "These ponds hold millions of gallons of toxic sludge, and that material can escape, should a wall collapse," she said.

Even without a collapse, the EIP found, coal ash contaminants leak into the ground through dam walls that lack proper seals.

"You don't have to have a disaster like you had in Tennessee in order to have a really dangerous situation," Stant said.

To ward off another dam collapse, the EPA would like to classify coal ash as hazardous waste, which would give it oversight for dam safety. Although the Obama administration has seemed wary of the proposed move, fearing congressional Republicans' rhetoric about "job-killing" regulations, the option remains on the table -- for now.

Some in Congress would like to remove the option and prohibit the EPA from imposing its draft hazardous waste regulations. In October, the House passed the Coal Residuals Reuse and Management Act, which would leave coal ash regulation up to the states and prevent the EPA from implementing the new rules. The Senate is looking at a similar measure backed by Sens. John Boozman (R-Ark.), Kent Conrad (D-S.D.), Mike Enzi (R-Wyo.), Joe Manchin (D-W.Va.), Ben Nelson (D-Neb.) and Rob Portman (R-Ohio).

"In the current economic environment, the continued threat of excessive regulations coming from this Administration creates uncertainty and hinders job growth," House Majority Leader Eric Cantor (R-Va.) said in a statement when his chamber's version of the bill passed.

Coal slurry dams are federally regulated at one end of the process -- when used in the mining of coal -- by the Mine Safety and Health Administration. Stacy Kika, an EPA spokeswoman, said that in developing its proposed regulations, the "EPA looked particularly to the Mine Safety and Health Administration, who has nearly 40 years experience writing regulations and inspecting dams associated with coal mining."

If some in Congress get their wish, however, there will be no federal regulation at the other end of the process, when the coal turns into ash.

"It's sad that the third anniversary of the TVA accident is coming up next week, and there's very little to show for it in terms of movement to prepare for another catastrophe," said Evans. "Instead, we seem to be going backwards."

FOLLOW HUFFPOST GREEN

Just days before the three-year anniversary of the devastating dike failure at the Tennessee Valley Authority's Kingston Fossil Plant, the Environmental Protection Agency still has little authority to...
Just days before the three-year anniversary of the devastating dike failure at the Tennessee Valley Authority's Kingston Fossil Plant, the Environmental Protection Agency still has little authority to...
 
 
  • Comments
  • 113
  • Pending Comments
  • 0
  • View FAQ
Post Comment Preview Comment
To reply to a Comment: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to.
View All
Favorites
Recency  | 
Popularity
Page: 1 2 3  Next ›  Last »  (3 total)
Genders
Love, Tolerance, Enlightenment
08:35 PM on 12/15/2011
Duh?

Rooftop solar, offshore wind, inefficiency and waste bio char can supply all the energy we need, clean safe, carbon negative. Cheaper than nukes, and cheaper than coal if you included all the external costs to the commons. 15 cents for solar average, much less best case. 6 cents or less wind and waste bio char.

Coal is not paying it's way.

Nukes get 500M$ per reactor per year in breaks and subsidies, coal gets even MORE. Green get 1% of that at best.
11:22 AM on 12/15/2011
Even though Kentucky just reelected a Democratic governor, King Coal continues to control every decision made in this state. I mean, gee whiz, the University of Kentucky basketball program named its new athletic center/dormitories "Wildcat Coal Lodge," thanks to the benevolence of Alliance Coal baron Joe Craft and a coal consortium. The previous center was named The Joe B. Hall Wildcat Lodge. However, in a deal reminscent of 19th century backroom negotiations, Craft delivered a $7-million-dollar check, sealing the deal. The new lodge even has a display in homage of coal. To hell with the environment and the people of Eastern Kentucky. Answer me this, if coal has been so good to this state and its people, why is there widespread, rampant poverty in Eastern Kentucky? It makes no sense. Only the coal barons have gotten rich.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Hikerguy22
Celebrate the end of Big Oil and Coal; and Meat?
10:25 AM on 12/15/2011
I see major problems ahead and double so if the republicans have their way, which is the news coming out of Russia concerning the thinning of the ice in the polar regions.
http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/sideshow/giant-plumes-methane-bubbling-surface-arctic-ocean-163804179.html
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
silverwolf13
I know that I do not know.
06:22 PM on 12/15/2011
That is super scary. Thanks for the link.
09:32 AM on 12/15/2011
Republicans do not care about clean air, clean water or safe food.

They must live in a parallel universe. They want to deregulate everything.

Wall Street needs regulation.

The BP spill in the Gulf shows we need regulation.

The West Virginia coal mine disaster shows we need better regulation.

We need to vote all Republicans blocking common sense regulations out of office
09:26 AM on 12/15/2011
I think these articles would be more more effective if their writers instructed readers as to what they can do. Most of us reading these articles are environmentalists, the rest of the general populace feels disconnected, powerless to affect change. Give names, give numbers, give addresses...don't assume your readers are 'in the loop'. If I didn't have a business to run, I'd have the time to do this myself. In the past, as an environmental activist, mining projects took up most of my time...it was a full time job. I don't have this kind of time anymore...but I can certainly pass useful info along via social networking sites, as should you. This is how you get people involved.
photo
spilkus
I'm in the art world, for Pete's sake.
08:29 AM on 12/15/2011
Um, who is that giant football player wearing mourning attire in the photo? I don't think coal can hurt him/her.
03:29 AM on 12/15/2011
"A new report released Tuesday shows coal ash's harmful environmental effects are more widespread than previously understood.

Meanwhile, a bill proposed by a bipartisan coalition of coal-state senators would strip away the federal government's power to do anything about it."

Once again we see just who these so called "representatives" work for and it's NOT the American people!! They are TRAITORS!!
photo
maslin
At 6 bn km, it's mostly small stuff.
03:23 AM on 12/15/2011
It is clear that we are producing fewer jobs than we have people who need those jobs. Many people in America are unemployed. Indeed, the employment crisis has so injured the nation that one of our Presidential candidates also suffers.

This jobs crisis is felt by everyone, but due to the economic nature of the affliction, it is felt most deeply by the poor, by the infirm, and by children. Welfare, charity, savings, and other reserves are depleted or depleting. At the same time, some of our states suffer 'brownouts' or other forms of power shortages. Fortuitously, my modest proposal* directly addresses all of these issues.

I shall now therefore humbly propose my own thoughts, which I hope will not be liable to the least objection.

I propose that we ignore the EPA's desire to regulate coal and its byproducts, and instead embark on a great expansion of coal power. In this great expansion, we should endeavor to eschew even the least attempt at reducing the damage from coal. Instead, we should build as many coal plants as possible as quickly as possible with as few safeguards as possible with the money we save reducing safeguards.

1 of 2
photo
maslin
At 6 bn km, it's mostly small stuff.
03:23 AM on 12/15/2011
It is true that an enormous toll will be exacted on the environment and the health of the public, perhaps amounting to twenty or even thirty thousands of unnecessary deaths every year in the United States. It is true that the great effusion of pollutants, some of which already pervade the waters, the air, and the land of our great Nation, may be in some cases be effectively permanent.

But consider, friend, that the great weight of mortality thus induced will fall directly on those groups already mentioned, namely the poor, the infirm, and children, thus greatly reducing the number of applicants for the jobs that we are producing, as well as our total demand for power.

Meanwhile, since the coal industry is by far the most dangerous and deadly of all our energy industries, the jobs we thus create are likely to employ more people, since there will be a higher-than-average turnover due to workplace mortality.

Problem solved!

*With sincere apologies to Jonathan Swift.

2 of 2
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
silverwolf13
I know that I do not know.
06:30 PM on 12/15/2011
Fanned for your "modest proposal."
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
mudshark12
Now who are you jiving with that cosmik debris?
12:21 AM on 12/18/2011
I see. Controlling job growth by NOT regulating harmful pollutants coming from big industry. Thus causing a decrease in demand by weeding out undesirable job applicants through the attrition caused by their demise.

Isn't this what's being proposed by the GOPee in their never-ending attack on the EPA? I guess this and never-ending war is how they figure to attain zero population growth. It's kinda like that scene in Braveheart only this time saying: "If we can't breed them out we'll kill them out".
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
I Think
03:17 AM on 12/15/2011
The ash from coal fired generating stations is a very good concrete additive, it improves the strength and the workability of the concrete, while reducing the amount of cement powder needed. Yet we are unable to buy concrete with this "fly ash" added, and concrete vendors in our area are completely in the dark as to the existence and benefits of the stuff.
Do not know if the concrete industry could absorb all the ash, but surely it could relieve some of the need for these toxic lagoons.
03:30 AM on 12/15/2011
For every ton of concrete produced 1.4 tons of carbon dioxide is released into the atmosphere. The concrete industry isn't helping.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
I Think
03:36 AM on 12/15/2011
Using fly ash would cut the amount of concrete needed for any given strength of concrete, and would use up some of the generating plants waste. Not a perfect solution but a step in the right direction.
dumocraps
My Screenname gets right to the point
11:41 AM on 12/15/2011
With out concrete, the country could not survive. Concrete along with steel and wood are the 3 basic building materials. With out these not a single building, bridge, highway of any industrial facility could be built.
01:20 PM on 12/15/2011
Don't you think there are better ways to get concrete? Instead of looking at the actual problem, which is that coal is polluting the planet and that the alternative is far better you want to talk about concrete?

Here is how to eliminate the need for toxic lagoons: Stop engaging in activity which creates the need toxic lagoons. We already know the alternative, and we already know that it's better. A wind farm on a mountain that would have otherwise would have been blown up for coal employs more people over a longer period of time and produces more energy!

I don't disagree that coal ash should be put to good use if there's a way to do it and since we already have mounds of it, but I feel like you're not focusing on the real issue.
02:38 AM on 12/15/2011
A recent U.S. government study has found large quantities of chemicals in the river and its tributaries—pollutants that are known to cause sex change in animals.
03:31 AM on 12/15/2011
Yes, but it creates jobs!
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
silverwolf13
I know that I do not know.
06:37 PM on 12/15/2011
Great! You get a job and a sex change at the same time, and without the operation! Oh, wait, I don't want a sex change.
FaceReality2
Democracy in the U.S. is an illusion
01:21 AM on 12/15/2011
"a bill proposed by a bipartisan coalition of coal-state senators would strip away the federal government's power to do anything about it."

Our corrupt government allows corporations to poison us, and we don't do anything about it.
01:01 AM on 12/15/2011
No coal. No Nukes. Good plan, but how do we get rid of about 250 million of our 315 million citizens so we can exist on thermal, tidal, hydro, solar and other cleaner powers?
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Dalton Perry
01:51 AM on 12/15/2011
Solar and thermal alone have the power to provide energy to our entire country.
10:06 AM on 12/15/2011
I'm all for alternative energy, but thermal is not unlimited. You never really know how long you can bleed heat off of a source before it goes cold. There could be other environmental impacts from drilling deep heat wells and siphoning off heat from unstable areas that have a delicate balance. It beats coal for sure but it's not like its prefect.
11:34 AM on 12/15/2011
You could also rig everyone up to a bike or treadmill but that isn't practical either.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
dobermanmacleod
LENR Ni-H exothermic reaction
12:45 AM on 12/15/2011
There is a new clean energy technology that is 1/10th the cost of coal. Don’t believe me? Watch this video by a Nobel prize winner in physics: http://pesn.com/2011/06/23/9501856_Nobel_laureate_touts_E-Cat_cold_fusion/

Still don’t believe me? It convinced the Swedish Skeptics Society: http://www.nyteknik.se/nyheter/energi_miljo/energi/article3144827.ece
http://www.renewableenergyworld.com/rea/blog/post/2011/05/swedish-skeptics-confirm-nuclear-process-in-tiny-4-7-kw-reactor

LENR using nickel. Incredibly: Ni+H+K2CO3(heated under pressure)=Cu+lots of heat. This phenomenon (LENR) has been confirmed in hundreds of published scientific papers: http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/RothwellJtallyofcol.pdf

Here is a PowerPoint presentation by George Miley of the University of Illinois who has successfully replicated the LENR "cold fusion" reaction: https://netfiles.uiuc.edu/mragheb/www/NPRE%20498ES%20Energy%20Storage%20Systems/Nuclear%20Battery%20using%20Clusters%20in%20Nanomaterials.pptx

According to Forbes, electricity will be "too cheap to meter" if Rossi's Oct 28 demonstration succeeds: http://www.forbes.com/sites/markgibbs/2011/10/17/hello-cheap-energy-hello-brave-new-world/

Here's the latest, according to MSNBC it passed the test: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/45153076/ns/technology_and_science-science/#.TrNo9rJqwe4

By the way, here is a current survey of all the companies that are bringing LENR to commercialization: http://www.cleantechblog.com/2011/08/the-new-breed-of-energy-catalyzers-ready-for-commercialization.html
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
KLEENKUT
My micro bio is half full
02:46 AM on 12/15/2011
Thanks for the info and links.
photo
maslin
At 6 bn km, it's mostly small stuff.
05:02 AM on 12/15/2011
Hi!

Generally, when the 'inventor' of a 'free energy' device has also spent some time in prison for fraud, that's a red flag.

When said inventor's patent application is rejected because it does not explain how it works or offer any theory to explain why it might work, that's another red flag.

When the much-touted demos feature a black box that no one is allowed to look inside of, that's another red flag.

Three red flags is enough to trigger the BS call.
photo
RefinedGentleman
Isn't she lovely? And she can cook too!
12:39 AM on 12/15/2011
We should impeach Obama over this
photo
Itaught30yrs
A proud American teacher for over 30 years.
12:07 AM on 12/15/2011
Have you seen all the pro-clean coal ads that have been running this year? The clean energy of America...really? Koch brothers must have a large budget to put these on TV...well of course they do.

Also the many ads asking the EPA to "slow down regulations". Talk about totally misleading and you know they are working along with FOX noise 24/7 pushing these same themes.

Amazing how many people believe "fair and balanced". Propoganda works...and sells ads. Someone is making money....and that would be a guy named Murdoch. Hmmm where have we heard that name before? (a little help here.. think British tabloid scandal)