Skip to main content

Even if we prevent coal companies from leveling, deforesting, and polluting much of Appalachia by stopping mountaintop removal mining, coal will still not be clean. Even if we stop the release of greenhouse gas emissions from coal-fired power plants, coal will still not be clean. Coal-fired power plants produce mountains of combustion waste which have the potential to contaminate ground and surface water with toxic heavy metals like arsenic.

The New York Times had a nice description of the problem:

America’s power plants produce 130 million tons of coal ash a year, enough to fill a train of boxcars stretching from the District of Columbia to Australia. Some of this is usefully, safely and profitably recycled to make concrete and other construction materials. Much of it winds up in lightly regulated landfills, some as big as 1,500 acres, where toxic pollutants like arsenic and lead can leach into the water table.

NYT, Jan. 20, 2010

To keep coal profitable, the mountains of coal combustion waste must be disposed of cheaply and the public kept blind to the dangers of contamination.

The mountains of coal ash continue to grow


This graph shows the tons of coal produced by year (blue) and tons used by industry for construction or other purposes (green) (scale on left axis). The difference between the blue and green lines represents the amount of ash stored in impoundments and landfills. Yellow line shows percentage of coal ash used (scale on right axis). See Green Grok for more discussion.

The coal protection society attacks

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is threatening to upset the coal gravy train of waste and pollution. The EPA will announce its decision in April of whether or not to classify coal ash as a hazardous waste. As a non-hazardous waste, coal ash is poorly regulated, allowing utilities to dump its ash mountains cheaply with little regard to public health. The EPA has plenty of evidence that coal ash has the potential to contaminate ground and surface water with heavy metals. The real question is whether the EPA under Obama has the will to fight the coal protection society and their political minions.

Three approaches to regulate coal combustion residuals (CCR) as part of the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) are under consideration. The business-as-usual approach would be to regulate CCR with existing hazardous waste exemptions left unchanged. The strict regulation approach would be to regulate CCRs as a hazardous waste under Subtitle C. This would require cradle to the grave monitoring of wastes and the EPA would be responsible for issuing permits for waste treatment, storage, and disposal facilities. A hybrid approach would designate CCRs as hazardous waste but stipulate safe secondary uses and provide guidance to states for regulating storage and disposal. (The EPA can authorize states to operate portions or all of the hazardous waste program in lieu of EPA operating the program.)

The utilities have already enlisted many spineless politicians to fight against regulating coal ash as hazardous waste. They want "coal combustion by-products" to be treated like magic dust. These mountains of magic dust have many wonderful uses and are only dangerous if stored in leaky ponds like the one that spilled 1 billion gallons of sludge in Kingston, Tennessee in 2008. Here is a listing of spineless members of the House and Senate that oppose EPA designation of coal ash as hazardous waste. The content of the House and Senate letters to the EPA parallels the basic talking points found in utility industry publications such as this one.

: : : : : :

Three industry canards

Three canards have been offered by opponents of regulating coal ash as a hazardous material. (1) State regulatory mechanisms are sufficient to protect public health. (2) Coal ash does not pose a health hazard due to toxic contamination. (3) Benefits of secondary uses for coal ash outweigh risks and regulations would interfere with secondary uses.

: : :

State regulation. The best predictor of future behavior is past behavior. A Department of Energy report in 2000 found significant "gaps in oversight." Those gaps in oversight seem to have grown over the past decade. Here is a sampling of those state agencies in action regulating coal ash at the time of the Kingston disaster. (Note how many pronounced their coal ash impoundments safe after the Kingston disaster only to have the EPA find structurally unsound sites at high hazard risk for failure.)

Tennessee (Home of the Kingston disaster and 3 additional EPA high hazard risk impoundments)

HARRIMAN, Tenn. — The Tennessee Valley Authority knew for the past decade of leaks at the fly ash retention pond that ruptured in Roane County two weeks ago, TVA and state inspection reports show.

Alabama (Home to a failure at Widows Creek impoundment three weeks after the Kingston disaster and 2 additional EPA high hazard risk impoundments )

MONTGOMERY -- Utilities operate coal ash retention ponds at nine locations in Alabama and all have passed inspection since a retention pond in east Tennessee spilled more than a billion gallons of gray ash.

TVA spokesman John Moulton said Tuesday the utility's ponds at the Widows Creek Fossil Plant in Stevenson and the Colbert Fossil Plant in Tuscumbia are inspected regularly and were inspected again after the spill. "They are all in good shape right now," he said.

North Carolina (Home to 12 EPA high hazard risk impoundments)

RALEIGH – Gov. Perdue this week urged state lawmakers to pass legislation that would increase the safety oversight of coal ash ponds in North Carolina. The legislation would subject the dams that create coal ash ponds to direct inspection by the N.C. Department of Environment and Natural Resources.

Currently, power companies are only required to file reports every five years by private engineers on the structural conditions of the dams. The impoundments are exempt from regulation under the N.C. Dam Safety Act.

Arizona (Home to 9 EPA high hazard risk impoundments)

The dams that hold coal-ash sludge for Arizona's utilities are in decent shape, according to inspection reports, making it unlikely a catastrophe like what happened in Tennessee last month could affect the state.

West Virginia (Home to 4 EPA high hazard risk impoundments)

CHARLESTON, W.Va. -- Most of the coal-ash impoundments in West Virginia haven't been examined by a state dam safety inspector for at least five years, according to data released by the state Department of Environmental Protection.  

After the Kingston disaster, state agencies responsible for monitoring coal ash impoundments either admitted they had not inspected the sites in years or pronounced them safe only to have the EPA find serious structural flaws in some sites. Yet, we are supposed to have faith that these same state agencies have the ability and resources to protect the public as the amount of coal combustion waste continues to accumulate in power plant impoundments and in landfills.

State agencies have also turned a blind eye to toxic contamination at coal ash waste storage sites. As noted in the next section, high levels of arsenic and other heavy metals have been found in groundwater at over 100 ash storage sites. The contamination at these sites has been found by studies funded by the EPA and environmental groups, not by the state agencies responsible for regulation. Even when contamination is reported to state regulators, they fail to take action. For example, the South Carolina Department of Health and Environmental Control entered into a consent agreement with a utility that allowed arsenic contamination in ash storage areas to reach 3000 parts per billion in groundwater. And here is how the Alabama Department of Environmental Management (ADEM) "regulated" a landfill containing the coal ash waste from the Kingston spill.

People throughout the community report nightly pumping of stinking gray / tannish waste from the landfill. I have personally seen it and documented the pumps, the gray sludge leaving the site. Arsenic and other pollutants  of concern have been reported to EPA and ADEM to no resolve. To-date, we can find NO reports showing where sampling has been done or toxic releases documented. I personally informed Mr. John Hagood, interim director ADEM of these illicit night time discharges but ADEM has chosen not to investigate. Instead, all the report says is that Mr. Cook, landfill manager denies the claim. No tests, no samples, no interviews of employees or nearby residents effected, just a simple denial by the manager was good enough to refute hundreds of photos, certified lab results, anecdotal stories from the community, or first hand eye witness account by me.

Coal Watch, John Wathen, 2/16/10

To date, state agencies have failed to protect the public against catastrophic ash pond spills like Kingston or high levels of toxic contamination in and around storage sites. Hazardous waste classification would force states to adhere to a national standard of inspection and contaminant monitoring. It would not allow them to inspect every five years or only when the site operator voluntarily reported a problem. It would make state regulators accountable to the EPA. Not surprisingly, many state environment and utility regulators are fighting the EPA classification of coal ash as hazardous waste (see list here).

: : :

Toxicity. Not one letter from industry, elected representatives, or state regulatory agencies petitioning the EPA to not to classify coal ash as a hazardous waste mentioned the potential for heavy metal contamination to ground and surface water at storage sites. Not one. Yes, the Bush administration did everything in its power to hide EPA studies related to toxicity. Ignorance is no longer an excuse as the EPA made those studies readily available after Obama assumed control of the agency.

The 2007 risk assessment identified 71 coal combustion waste damage cases, 23 of which caused off-site contamination.

The EPA‘s 2007 risk assessment shows that the disposal of coal ash, especially in unlined ponds, results in alarmingly high risks of cancer and diseases of the heart, lung, liver, stomach and other organs and can seriously harm aquatic ecosystems and wildlife near disposal sites.  These risks are driven by exposure to toxic metals that leach from groundwater into drinking water, surface waters and sediment.  Some of the sites evaluated by the EPA may no longer be active, but the Agency has warned that contamination from coal ash ponds will not peak until about 78 to 105 years after waste is dumped, while peak exposure from landfills may occur after even longer periods of time.

Environmental Integrity Project summary

An analysis of 31 additional coal combustion waste sites was recently completed by the Environmental Integrity Project and Earthjustice organizations.

This report brings to light 31 coal combustion waste sites that are known to have contaminated groundwater, wetlands, creeks, or rivers in 14 states: Delaware, Florida, Illinois, Indiana, Maryland, Michigan, Montana, Nevada, New Mexico, North Carolina, South Carolina, Tennessee, Pennsylvania, and West Virginia.  


At 15 of the 31 sites, contamination has already migrated off the power plant property (off-site) at levels that exceed drinking water or surface water quality standards.  The remaining 16 show evidence of severe on-site pollution.


The 31 sites described in this report represent only a fraction of the contaminated coal ash sites currently leaking poisons into streams, rivers, aquifers and wetlands throughout the United States.  If one considers that over 100 damage cases have been identified, this alone represents about 15% of the coal-fired power plants presently operating in the United States. Yet EPA has acknowledged that most coal ash ponds and a significant portion of coal ash landfills are unlined (or inadequately lined) and unmonitored.

Limited data on toxicity might have warranted inaction in 2000, but that excuse is no longer remotely defensible. There is no legitimate reason to preserve the hazardous waste exemption for coal combustion wastes.

: : :

Beneficial use. Classification as a hazardous waste does not prevent its use in cement or building materials. Hazardous materials are used in industrial processes all the time. It does mean that putting them in unlined or rarely inspected impoundments or landfills. In fact, if most states and pretentious public servants cared about this issue as much as they pretend in their slobbering letters, then they would require road and building construction contracts to use cement with coal ash content.

A game is being played here. The amount of coal ash waste being generated is overwhelming disposal sites. Currently, 55% of coal ash is impounded, which amounts to 72 million tons per year at current generation rates. The industry is claiming that hazardous waste regulations would stop beneficial uses when all it would do is increase the costs of disposal by prohibiting unsafe management practices. Coal ash does make a fine additive to concrete and other building materials. Unless you require that all concrete contain coal ash however, the supply of coal ash will far exceed the demand for defensible use. Kudos to the New York Times for making the point effectively.

The recycling market will not disappear. Materials that are responsibly recycled are not, typically, designated as hazardous. The real problem is the 60 percent or so of the coal ash that winds up in porous landfills. Evidence suggests that tough but carefully tailored rules could encourage even more recycling, protecting the environment while yielding income to help pay for more secure landfills.

NYT, Jan. 20, 2010

Here is an example of a politician that had a difficult time making a coherent case regarding secondary use of coal ash even using the crib notes from industry lobbyists. (I cannot believe this slub is my Senator.)

I have been told previous Agency regulatory determinations have advised that coal combustion by-products not used for beneficial use should be disposed in landfills and surface impoundments with composite liners to reduce risk to human and ecological health. However, coal combustion by-products used beneficially, other than for mine-filling, should not be categorized as a hazardous waste as they are not a waste, but an ingredient in applications that conserve natural resources and reduce disposal costs.

Roland Burris letter to EPA, Nov. 19, 2009

Senator, did they tell you that the regulations in 2000 advised rather required disposal in protected impoundments? Did they tell you that the Bush administration allowed the coal industry to help write and veto regulations governing coal ash for 8 years before Kingston disaster? Did they tell you how many unlined or structurally unsound impoundments currently contain coal ash waste? Did they tell you that Blagojevich was a corrupt twit that tried to sell a Senate seat appointment to the highest bidder? That one I suspect you heard about.

The final inconvenient truth about secondary use of coal ash is that all not uses are justifiable. Some uses are potentially harmful. Some are little more uncontrolled dump sites for mountains of coal ash. Here are two examples of potentially dangerous use of coal ash, both of which involve convenient dumping of coal ash waste as fill material in construction sites and mountaintop removal mining sites.

Every year, about 11.5 million tons of coal ash are placed in structural fills such as highway embankments or building foundations. Because this reuse is subject to little or no regulation in many states, some structural fills may be little more than dumpsites in disguise.  Two structural fills identified in this study — Rocky Acres in Illinois and Swift Creek in North Carolina — have polluted groundwater.  At the Swift Creek fill, oozing arsenic contaminated an off-site aquifer. Both cases illustrate the importance of setting standards to ensure that recycling of ash is done responsibly and not used as a loophole for the back door disposal of material that is hazardous when mismanaged.

Environmental Integrity Project & Earthjustice, page vii

Coal combustion residue—the material that is left once coal has been burned, as in a power plant—is sometimes placed on surface mines to abate acid mine drainage. According to OSM, the residue may also be used to enhance soil, seal and encapsulate material, and backfill mine sites. If coal combustion residue were deemed a hazardous waste, surface mines receiving such materials might be subjected to RCRA’s hazardous waste provisions and could be forced to address releases of hazardous wastes.

Government Accounting Office report, page 33

The bottom line is that EPA regulation of coal combustion waste does not interfere with appropriate uses of this material, but will make potentially dangerous applications more difficult.

: : : : : :

Please take action:

At the moment, the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) is holding up the release of new regulations. The OMB and EPA are being barraged with pleas from the coal industry, utilities, business groups, state regulatory agencies, and politicians opposing classification of coal ash waste as a hazardous material. It would be extremely helpful if you would take a moment to drop a line to the OMB and EPA to encourage them to move forward with regulation of coal combustion waste as a hazardous material. Remind them that the patchwork of state regulatory agencies has failed to protect the public against spills and contamination, there is overwhelming evidence of heavy metal toxic contamination in water on or near containment sites, and secondary uses need to be tightly regulated using a national standard to prevent contamination of water resources.

Use this form from the Natural Resource Defense Council to provide feedback to the OMB:

NRDC form

Originally posted to DWG on Tue Mar 09, 2010 at 09:46 AM PST.


In April, the EPA will announce

41%12 votes
6%2 votes
17%5 votes
34%10 votes

| 29 votes | Vote | Results

Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags


More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  Highly recommended, great summary, no bozos (8+ / 0-)

    thus likely to be ignored in all the metanavelgazing today.  I'll do what I can to get some more eyeballs.

    I've never claimed to be a leader of the DK eco community

    by RLMiller on Tue Mar 09, 2010 at 10:17:55 AM PST

  •  Great Diary (4+ / 0-)

    Thanks for writing it!

    In addition, there's a David Roberts of Grist article out today about coal that everyone should check out.

    Getting coal out of the ground is horrifically destructive to both ecosystems and human communities. Washing coal to prepare it for transport leaves behind multi-million gallon pools of toxic slurry, which regularly fail and flood nearby communities. Transporting coal is a carbon-intensive and destructive undertaking in itself. In Appalachia, gigantic trucks careen downhill on narrow roads carrying enormous coal loads trailing toxic dust. Coal trains also lock up most of the country's rail infrastructure, which could otherwise be used for low-carbon freight shipping.

    Burning coal is also horrific. It leaves behind enormous quantities of heavy metal-laden coal ash, often in uncovered impoundments, from which ash drifts onto local communities. (Some coal ash is used in concrete too, but that doesn't make it clean either.) In fact, efforts in recent decades to scrub air pollutants out of smokestacks in response to Clean Air Act requirements have led to more coal ash, as pollutants are effectively transferred from the air to the ash, where they are far less strictly regulated.

    Into the air it releases not only CO2 but sulfur dioxide, nitrogen oxide, volatile organic compounds, mercury, arsenic, lead, cadmium, and smog-forming particulates. According to a 2009 report from the National Research Council, coal's air pollution-related health impacts alone represent about $62 billion a year in "hidden costs." To my knowledge, no one has yet added that $62 billion to the costs of coal-related water pollution (see NYT's devastating Toxic Waters series), the cost of cleaning up after coal slurry floods, the cost of ceding rail infrastructure, the impoverishment of Appalachian communities, and the loss of some of America's oldest, most biodiverse forests. Obviously it's difficult to place a precise monetary value on some of that damage, but suffice to say, the sum total is enormous, if almost entirely unreflected in the market price of coal power.! The climate can't wait.

    by B Amer on Tue Mar 09, 2010 at 11:03:20 AM PST

  •  Don't forget radioactivity! (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    RunawayRose, DWG

    Scientific American, 12/13/07: "Coal Ash is more Radioactive than Nuclear Waste."

    Starboard Broadside: Firing all guns at the Right since September 2008!

    by Cpt Robespierre on Tue Mar 09, 2010 at 11:17:52 AM PST

    •  wierd article, misleading really (0+ / 0-)

      and believe me I am anti-nuke because:  

      What has humanity and especially industry done to prove that it can responsibly manage something as dangerous as nuclear power and nuclear waste over decades, not to mention centuries, not to mention thousands of millennia?  

      However, the article is comparing fly ash radiation to the amount of radiation that comes out of nuclear waste that is "properly stored".  Seems like a pretty stupid comparison to me.

      "The problems of incompetent, corrupt, corporatist government are incompetence, corruption and corporatism, not government." Jerome a Paris

      by Earth Ling on Tue Mar 09, 2010 at 03:36:07 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  Interesting (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    DWG, beach babe in fl

    thanks, I just returned from a trip to Arkansas this Sunday looking at the construction sight of the Southwestern Electric Power Company's, American Electric Power's (AEP) Turk Power Plant.

    I believe it's AEP's first "ultra-supercritical" advanced coal combustion technology plant, at least one of the first in the U.S anyhow.

    My husband works for AEP. We were looking around since he'd been polled by corporate for the possibility of transfering there.

    About the subject of this diary: We live some 45 miles uphill from the plant he currently works at, although not the coal plant, he works at the combined cycle one next to it.

    We live in a region designated by the EPA as cleanest air last time I checked, and so far clean water.

    We don't wish to live near the plant.

    My husband spends his days exposed to the air and environment there. This diary is a good expose I think.

    (Note: Some people always ask about this -- the drive to work is not as green but we compensate in other areas, small  square footage dwelling, a recycled home - it was moved here from the city - no central A/C, propane heat, our grocery habits support local ag.)

    The human aspect: The stress of running aging equipment on inadequate budgets, and shift work takes it's toll on power plant operators and employees.

    And there's the subject of this diary, there's coal ash to deal with.

    What is needed is individual responsibility to cut back consumption of power. And the continued pressure to educate like this diary does.

    Corporate upper level management run the plant from office buildings in cities far from where the power is made.

    At the plant, do plant management and the workers exhibit health conditions at higher percentage than the population in a certain radius from the plant? More heart disease and cancers maybe?  How much is a result of some combination of lifestyle and risk exposure or just exposure? Don't know.

    We've often wondered what the numbers are. We know what it is from personal experience. Last week: One operator, 60 years old, just recovering now from a heart valve replacement. He's in the healthy life-style category. Fit and strong all things considered. Will return to work.

    Last October, father of two, in his 40s, heart attack. Is back to work with a stint.

    Around the same time, administrative assistant, late 40s, cancer, undergoing treatment, unable to return to work.

    I suppose it may be the same in other jobs, but there aren't hundreds of people at this plant. They are actually under-manned.

    How many days since an injury? Oh so many! How many days exposed to hazardous environment? Everyday on the job.

    Side note: Housing around the plant is actually over-priced being marketed as a desirable bedroom community for Tulsa. Overlooking the emissions and any other potential health hazards? Possibly.

    I noticed this AEP's Oologah coal plant in Oklahoma of which I refer to above is not on the list of the 31 sites.

    Before you take action, and please do, tour your nearest power plant, a coal plant preferably if you haven't already, with the right person you may get some candid answers to pointed questions, valuable information to compose your letter. Think of it as writing a letter on their behalf and yours.

    They deal with corporate bs day and day out. On the flip side is government oversight not actually dealing with a real problem but overly concerned with numerous minor ones. (I have examples. So will the right person.)

    Ever heard a corporation blame government oversight for their atrocious behavior? There's always some truth behind it. But it's never an excuse.

    •  Thank you for very thoughtful comment (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:

      The constituents of coal combustion waste depend on the coal composition burned and the combustion process. The problem with coal ash is heavy metals rapidly leach into water so storage in slurry impoundments is problematic. Many older impoundments are also unlined and structurally unsound.

      The plant in Oologah is a new generation plant and still partially under construction. The only major question raised has been mercury levels in the emission stream. It looks like it is planned to be a testbed for carbon sequestration. As coal plants go, this one is better than most.

      The issue of the internal environment of these plants has not received much attention.

      I have toured many of the plants in IL where I live and many in the Appalachian region where my family and my wife's family originate. These plants are older, have large ash impoundments due to accumulation over decades, and have many issues with their waste stream.

      The importance of writing letters in support of classification of coal ash as hazardous waste is that it bring a national standard for handling the material and set very specific inspection and testing requirements for impoundments and landfills. Right now, states are extremely lax in oversight. Budgetary pressures on state budgets also provide an incentive to cut corners on oversight.

      Please help the people of Haiti

      by DWG on Wed Mar 10, 2010 at 02:07:15 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Oh, I forgot to say that the Turk Plant (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:

        is in Fulton, AR, Hempstead County. To me it's actually in McNabb, north of Fulton.

        The Oologah plant was built in 1961, it's in Oklahoma.

        Glad you are taking on the coal ash issue, the industry and its multi-level relationship with government oversight needs rational dialogue, results, and visibility.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site