More

Coal Ash, Power Plant Waste Product, Taints More U.S. Sites, Report Finds


First Posted: 12/13/11 06:08 PM ET Updated: 12/14/11 12:37 PM ET

* Power plant waste product newly detected in 10 states

* EPA, watchdog group see total 157 contaminated sites

* Those who live near coal ash oppose bill in Senate

By Deborah Zabarenko, Environment Correspondent

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Toxic contamination from coal ash, a waste product of coal-fired power plants, has been detected in ground water and soil at 20 sites in 10 U.S. states, an environmental watchdog group reported Tuesday.

These sites are the latest to contribute to a total of 157 identified by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and the independent Environmental Integrity Project, which released the report.

Coal ash is left after coal is burned at power plants and has concentrations of heavy metals and salts that can leach into the environment unless disposed of properly in ponds with liners and covers, said Jeff Stant, the report's editor.

But most states do not require ponds to be lined, have any construction standards or any monitoring or cleanup requirements, Stant said, adding that almost half the wastes from coal-burning in the United States are dumped this way.

Nineteen of the 20 newly identified sites show ground water contaminated with arsenic or other toxic metals exceeding the maximum contaminant level set out in the Safe Drinking Water Act.

The 20th site showed contaminated soil with arsenic 900 times the federal screening level for site cleanups, the report said.

Those who live near these sites, including three people who spoke at a briefing, reported contaminated streams, respiratory problems and air pollution powerful enough to turn a white house black. In one case, a rancher said he closely monitors the amount of sulfate in the water his cattle drink because this chemical can reach lethal levels.

PUBLIC HEALTH CONCERN

The Environmental Integrity Project released an open letter to Congress signed by more than 2,000 people living near coal ash sites, decrying ``legislation that would stop EPA in its tracks and replace real standards with imaginary state 'plans' that polluters could ignore ...''

Stant and others noted at a briefing that the House of Representatives has passed and the Senate is considering legislation that the environmental group said would give the states, instead of the federal government, authority to address the problem of coal ash contamination of water and soil.

``We already have here a clear and present danger to America's public health,'' Stant said at a telephone briefing. ''It is no solution for Congress to hand authority for addressing the problem permanently to states that have refused to enforce common-sense standards for the last 30 years and hope that the whole problem goes away.''

John Ward, of the American Coal Ash Association, disputed that interpretation of the measure now in Congress.

``There are no federal standards for coal ash right now,'' Ward said by telephone. ``This bill would also expand EPA's enforcement authority from what it is now.''

Ward noted that coal ash is generated in vast quantities and can be reprocessed into such consumer goods as wallboard and shingles.

``We think the solution to coal ash problems is to stop throwing it away, to alleviate the need to have these disposal ponds at all,'' Ward said.

The full Environmental Integrity Project report is available online at http://environmentalintegrity.org. (Editing by Vicki Allen)

--- ALSO ON THE HUFFINGTON POST:
FOLLOW HUFFPOST GREEN

* Power plant waste product newly detected in 10 states * EPA, watchdog group see total 157 contaminated sites * Those who live near coal ash oppose bill in Senate ...
* Power plant waste product newly detected in 10 states * EPA, watchdog group see total 157 contaminated sites * Those who live near coal ash oppose bill in Senate ...
Filed by Joanna Zelman  |  Report Corrections
 
 
  • Comments
  • 47
  • Pending Comments
  • 0
  • View FAQ
Comments are closed for this entry
View All
Favorites
Recency  | 
Popularity
Page: 1 2  Next ›  Last »  (2 total)
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
MrBIgp
Maybe I'm wrong, but....
04:49 PM on 01/04/2012
The fly ash US coal plants produce in one year would fill 45 Dallas Cowboy stadiums. The spent fuel required to generate the same amount of electricity using nuclear would cover one end zone 6 feet deep.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
aligatorhardt
Cut on the bias
06:22 PM on 12/19/2011
Who wants toxic waste in the drywall boards inside the house? If people knew this was being used for drywall they would choose to buy drywall products without toxic wastes added. This is not proper disposal of toxic products. Interior materials contribute to poor inside air quality, creating illness and higher health care costs. These ash wastes should be returned to unused mines.
01:27 AM on 12/20/2011
Updated 12/1/10)
Information about Synthetic Gypsum in Wallboard
Synthetic gypsum has been used to make wallboard in the United States for more than 20 years: Since 2000 alone, the U.S. gypsum wallboard manufacturing industry has produced the equivalent of 72,000,000,000 square feet of wallboard made with synthetic gypsum . enough to finish the interior of more than 7,000,000 American homes. Both synthetic gypsum and mined gypsum have the chemical composition of calcium sulfate dihydrate, CaSO4E2H2O. Synthetic gypsum (also called FGD gypsum) is an environmentally friendly product made to our specifications through a controlled process in which the emissions from coal fired power plants are scrubbed to remove the sulfur dioxide by use of wet or dry scrubbers also called flue gas desulfurization (FGD). Today, all USG brand gypsum wallboard is manufactured using synthetic gypsum, gypsum mined in North America, or a combination of both. The EPA proposed new rules on the disposal of synthetic gypsum do not apply to synthetic gypsum used for making wallboard or other beneficial uses: On June 21, 2010, the EPA proposed national rules to ensure the safe disposal and management of coal combustion residuals from coal fired power plants. These proposed rules would not apply to synthetic gypsum that is beneficially used.
01:29 AM on 12/20/2011
In its proposal, the EPA repeated its view that the use of FGD gypsum in making wallboard is safe and environmentally beneficial. The EPA stated that the use of FGD gypsum in the manufacture of wallboard (drywall) decreases the need to mine natural gypsum, thereby conserving the natural resource and conserving energy that otherwise would be needed to mine natural gypsum . . . Notably, the EPA own award winning building in Arlington, Virginia is made using wallboard containing synthetic gypsum.2 At present, it is unclear to what extent the proposed EPA rules, if adopted, might impact the production of synthetic gypsum or its use in making wallboard. A timetable has not been established for the adoption or rejection of the EPA proposed national rules.
USG ensures the safety and purity of the gypsum it uses to make its wallboard: USG conducts acceptance testing on both the synthetic gypsum and mined gypsum it uses to ensure that the gypsum meets our established quality, purity, and production standards. USG also requires the synthetic gypsum supplier (the power plant) to conduct quality control testing of the shipments of synthetic gypsum to our plants. In addition, USG conducts quality control and assurance testing at our manufacturing facilities and tests both the synthetic gypsum and the mined gypsum we use for purity and the presence of contaminants. These tests are conducted both by our own research scientists as well as certified third party laboratories.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
07:24 PM on 12/16/2011
RESPONSIBILTY is taking care of your own garbage.

Mercury is real bad news! We can do a whole lot better. We are being buried alive.

“These include the tailings of ancient tin mines, rare earth mine tailings, phosphate mine tailings and uranium mine tailings. In addition to the thorium present in mine tailings and in surface monazite sands, burning coal at the average 1GWe power plant produces about 13 tons of thorium per year. That thorium is recoverable from the power plant’s waste ash pile.
One ton of thorium will produce nearly 1 GW of electricity for a year in an efficient thorium cycle reactor. Thus current coal energy technology throws away over 10 times the energy it produces as electricity. This is not the result of poor thermodynamic efficiency; it is the result of a failure to recognize and use the energy value of thorium. The amount of thorium present in surface mining coal waste is enormous and would provide all the power human society needs for thousands of years, without resorting to any special mining for thorium, or the use of any other form or energy recovery.”

http://www.theoildrum.com/node/4971

www.coal2nuclear.com/
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
MrBIgp
Maybe I'm wrong, but....
05:20 PM on 01/04/2012
Still amazes me that there is 10-13 time as much energy potential in the thorium in coal than in the coal itself. We could produce all of our electricity with no new mining for decades.
03:10 AM on 12/15/2011
Coal plants produce way more radiation than nuclear power plants...not to mention ridiculous pollution.

Just a quick Google search gives more than enough info:
http://yarchive.net/nuke/coal_radiation.html
http://www.epa.gov/radtown/coal-plant.html
http://blogs.agu.org/wildwildscience/2011/03/15/radiation-from-coal-vs-nuclear-plants/
01:33 PM on 12/15/2011
Um, you get alot more radation from the sun, cell phone, microwave, computer/ tv screen etc. everyday than what you do getting from a power plant. And yeah coal is not the cleanest thing and people want to get rid of it but in reality we can't. You have to consider the fact that 44% of all the energy in the US is provided by coal and we haven't yet found a reliable and economical source of energy to replace it. What comes close to it is nuke power and natural gas. Sorry, wind, solar, hydro just doesnt cut it and prob never will. If they were better they would of already replaced it. When it comes with "green" energy, you cannot have your cake and eat it at the same time. It would take thousands of acres of wind mills just to produce what one coal power plant produces. Who wants something like that in their backyard? Plus the wind doesnt always blow or blow right, the sun doesnt always shine, and all the good spots for hydro are already taken up. How is that a reliable and economical way of thinking when you dont know if the wind is going to blow right today? On the power grid reliabilty is the key factor. Distance from a power plant is also a big factor. example a wind farm out in Nevada cannot physically power a city in the east coast due to elec power line load loss.
04:17 AM on 01/06/2012
since 2/5 of all energy is used in transportation (auto) --how do you get 44% is generated by burning coal?
"Better" is not the problem with alt. energy vs. possil energy--it is the cost. The true cost of fossil is hidden under a century of perks we pay with taxes and never see on our energy bills. All your arguements have been disproven. Coal plants also go off line-- energencies, maintenance, grid failures etc. ==some more unpredictable than the wind.
01:37 PM on 12/15/2011
I cannot leave out we get a good bit of byproducts from coal energy (wallboard ingredients, concrete ingred, road tar ingred) that would otherwise have to be mined causing more polution.Coal IS getting cleaner with mercury capturing agents, envorimentally friendly bottom ash systems and scubber systems capturing 99.5% of all SO2 emitted, turning the SO2 into gypsum for wallboard.Dont get me wrong, getting cleaner energy is the way to go. Its good for everything. But why are we pouring dollarsinto something that is proving very costly to build/run and proven unreliable like wind/solar? Why not invest in something thats proven very reliable and economical like coal and find more ways to make it cleaner? (Mmmm... wonder why all these solar companies are going under??) Lets find a way to economically capure that CO2. I live two miles from a power plant that i work at and i can say these power companies gives a substantial amount back to the surrounding communities and wildlife and provides hundreds of jobs in the community. You never here of the good things these plants do mostly because of the way media is. This whole global warming stuff is out of control to the point where lawmakers and scientists scew the facts just to help with their adgenda or programs.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
rocksage7
sustainability rocks
10:39 PM on 12/14/2011
clean coal at work....
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
rog1112
stealing bread from the mouths of decadence
02:29 PM on 12/14/2011
Uhmmm, no story update on the new proof of gas fracking pollutants getting into ground/aquaphor water sources nor the nuclear industry pushing buttons...

http://simplyinfo.org/

Could this article be part of a plan to look at more nuclear plant alternatives?
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
MrBIgp
Maybe I'm wrong, but....
01:58 PM on 12/14/2011
The fly ash the we produce in the US in one year would completely fill Texas Stadium 45 times over. If the same amount of electricity were produced by nuclear, the spent fuel would cover the field from the goal line to the 20 yard line 4 feet deep.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
GandenT
01:24 PM on 12/14/2011
The power from the plants and their income and profits all cross state lines; why should this be some sort of "states' rights" issue. Obviously fighting for "states' rights" sounds cool to conservatives, wastes time that would have been spent regulating the business practice, and allows power companies to play each state off of the next in a race to the lowest possible standards, but what does any of that have to do with protecting the public and private and public property from toxic waste?
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Geo Bruno
Balance the farces that release within you
12:28 PM on 12/14/2011
Don't worry folks Jesus will bail us at at the lat possible moment

Or so I'm told
12:36 PM on 12/14/2011
Hey, their's money to be made. We can worry about the small stuff later; later; later.
12:28 PM on 12/14/2011
Don't worry the free market will take care of this.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
GandenT
01:24 PM on 12/14/2011
Any day now...
photo
chazmann49
time to coast..the ride is over
12:12 PM on 12/14/2011
Wow, this has been going on since they fired up the first coal power plant. The Republican philosophy is "I wont be here in 100 years". The Republicans dont say anything until it is thier backyard. Let them have the "Dang" pipeline. They spin things that it sounds sooo good for America!
This is whay you cant eat freh water fish and only salt water fish no more than once a week or not at all if pregnant. Our country is full of Mercury from this and many arsenic based pollutants.
Many think it is to late already! Dont hear any uproar from senator turtle or rep bohner!
10:42 PM on 12/14/2011
Gas plants emit no mercury. The EPA mercury rule will put old inefficient coal plants out of business -- this is a very good thing
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
morshan
Freedom allows progress
12:10 PM on 12/14/2011
There is a Harvard study that says the USA pays, from taxpayer money, $300B to $500B on health, environmental and other similar issues due to fossil fuels, annually. I consider this a subsidy, the industry should be paying for these cleanups, not the public.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
GandenT
01:27 PM on 12/14/2011
Conservatives only understand or care about the profit part of business, everything else doesn't exist for them.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
MrBIgp
Maybe I'm wrong, but....
02:07 PM on 12/14/2011
If you are talking about the Epstein 2011 study, it focused on coal. The damages from oil and gas are additional. The study also concluded there are 24,000 early deaths a year in the US as a result of the coal cycle.
11:25 AM on 12/14/2011
This is not news..it's common sense...something the GOP lacks or ignores in their quest for the almighty dollar.
11:21 AM on 12/14/2011
Cedar Rapids Iowa imports coal ash because it has 3 of the 4 unregulated landfills in the state of Iowa. These landfills are within the city limits. Some of this cities exports are processed cereals and corn syrup. From the "Iowa Independent" http://iowaindependent.com/12699/toxic-coal-ash-dumps-face-few-regulations-in-iowa Here is another link that may be of interest because it is within blocks of grain storage and food processors. www.epa.gov/epawaste/nonhaz/industrial/special/fossil/surveys/alliant-6th.pdf Cedar Rapids is one city in one state that is part of a very big problem.