When a billion gallons of coal ash
\nbroke loose from a holding pond at the Tennessee Valley Authority’s
\nKingston power plant near Harriman, Tenn. in December 2008, registered
\nnurse Penny Dodson was living nearby with her 18-month-old grandson,
\nEvyn.<\/p>\n
Like most of her neighbors, Dodson never gave much thought to the
\nimpoundment until it collapsed, destroying three homes, damaging 42
\nothers and inundating the nearby Clinch and Emory rivers with the sludgy
\n coal waste.<\/p>\n
The Dec. 22 spill blanketed Dodson’s property, but
\nTVA assured residents it wasn’t toxic, so she and Evyn stayed put. But a
\n week after the disaster, Evyn—who suffers from cerebral palsy—
\nbecame very ill. <\/p>\n
He refused to play or eat, his eyes turned red
\nand watery, and he began coughing and wheezing. He eventually landed in
\nthe hospital, where tests showed his body had high levels of arsenic and
\n lead, contaminants in the coal ash. The doctors blamed his troubles on
\nairborne ash and advised them to move.<\/p>\n
“I carry guilt because we stayed,” Evyn Dodson, shown here at the 2009 state hearing on the TVA disaster, suffered serious health problems that doctors blamed on toxic substances in the coal ash that blanketed his family’s property. Still shot from WSMV video of the hearingSince that fateful incident, other energy Coal But the days of coal ash escaping EPA is What happens in the coming months will Hazards in our midst<\/strong><\/p>\n A coal ash spill from another Tennessee Valley Authority plant in Alabama the month after the disaster contaminated Widows Creek.Photo: Hurricane Creekkeeper John WathenWhen coal is burned to produce U.S. coal plants Because coal ash is not regulated by the But Of the more than 580 These ratings are significant, because In In August 2005, an In January 2009 Despite the “It’s Poisoned Catastrophic collapses like the one In fact, a And as a The At Tampa Electric’s Big Bend Station<\/strong> near Apollo Beach in At SCE&G’s Selenium discharges from ash impoundments at AEP’s John Amos Plant<\/strong> along the Kanawha River in Winfield, W.Va. have exceeded the facility’s Arsenic in groundwater beneath Progress Energy’s Communities can be exposed to the Dry The health consequences of the public’s “These companies fought every step of the What’s at stake<\/strong><\/p>\n These The two Energy companies have With the EPA now putting the future of coal “The catastrophic failure of the dam in * * *<\/p>\n TOMORROW: Sue Sturgis is an investigative reporter and Related Links:<\/strong><\/p>\n Conservation legend Russell Train to Senate: Protect the Clean Air Act<\/a><\/p>\n Love, in the Time of Blasting<\/a><\/p>\n
\nDodson said in
\ntestimony<\/a> to state lawmakers at a hearing held two months after the
\ndisaster. “Because I was told that we were going to be safe, and I
\nbelieved them.”<\/p>\n
\ndisasters have grabbed headlines: the blast
\n at a West Virginia coalmine<\/a> that left 29 miners dead, and an
\nexplosion on BP’s offshore oil drilling rig<\/a> that killed 11 workers
\nand has released millions of gallons of oil into the Gulf of Mexico.<\/p>\n
\n ash isn’t receiving as much attention nowadays. But a six-month
\ninvestigation by Facing South finds that it poses a growing threat to
\npublic health and the environment—even as coal ash remains
\nunregulated by the federal government due in large part to political
\npressure from energy companies.<\/p>\n
\n the scrutiny of federal regulators are numbered. Earlier this month,
\nthe U.S. Environmental Protection Agency—after months of delay due to
\n maneuvering among the EPA, White House Office of Management and Budget,
\n and the politically powerful electric utility industry—took the
\nunusual step of releasing
\n two different proposals<\/a> for how to regulate coal ash.<\/p>\n
\n now asking the public to weigh in on the two options during a 90-day
\ncomment period that will begin once the proposed rules are published in
\nthe Federal Register. (For a pre-publication version of the rules, click
\n here<\/a>.)
\n As EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson said when the regulatory options were
\n rolled out, “We look forward to the participation and the comments of
\nthe American people.”<\/p>\n
\ndetermine whether communities will be protected from the prospect of
\nanother coal ash disaster like the one that struck eastern Tennessee, as
\n well as from less visible but no less dangerous coal ash disasters
\nunfolding in communities nationwide.<\/p>\n
\nelectricity, it leaves behind a variety of wastes—fly ash, bottom
\nash, boiler slag, and more—known collectively by regulators as coal
\ncombustion waste, or more commonly as coal ash.<\/p>\n
\ngenerate more than 150 million tons of coal ash each year, according to a
\n recent Environmental Protection Agency analysis<\/a>.
\n That makes it the second-largest industrial waste stream in the U.S.
\nafter mining waste.<\/p>\n
\nfederal government, the EPA had never set out to count the number of
\nimpoundments for disposing of coal ash waste nationwide.<\/p>\n
\nafter the Kingston disaster, the agency launched a search that turned
\n up<\/a> a total of 584 impoundments and similar disposal sites at more
\nthan 200 facilities, mostly power plants.<\/p>\n
\nimpoundments the EPA discovered, it rated the hazard potential of about a
\n third of them. Of those, 49 units have been rated as high hazard—
\nmeaning a failure like the one at Kingston would likely kill people.
\nAnother 60 units are rated as significant hazards, meaning their failure
\n could lead to widespread destruction like the Kingston disaster. Many
\nof the communities at greatest risk from hazardous impoundments have higher-than-average
\n poverty rates<\/a>.<\/p>\n
\nfailures of coal ash impoundments are not rare occurrences:\n<\/p>\n
\nJuly 2002, a
\n sinkhole developed<\/a> in an impoundment at the Georgia
\nPower\/Southern Company’s Plant Bowen<\/strong> in Bartow County, Ga., covering
\n four acres and reaching 30 feet in depth. The sinkhole released 2.25
\nmillion gallons of a water and coal-ash mix to a tributary of the
\nEuharlee Creek; that creek feeds the Etowah River, which provides
\n drinking water<\/a> to local communities and habitat
\n to imperiled species<\/a>.<\/p>\n
\n impoundment failed<\/a> at PPL’s Martins Creek power plant<\/strong> in
\nPennsylvania’s Northampton County, sending more than 100 million gallons
\n of contaminated water and coal ash into the Delaware River, which provides
\n drinking water<\/a> for downstream communities.<\/p>\n
\n—less than a month after the catastrophic collapse at the Kingston
\nplant—a pipe inside a coal ash impoundment at TVA’s Widows Creek
\nplant<\/strong> in northeastern Alabama leaked<\/a>,
\n sending as much as 10,000 gallons of coal ash waste into nearby Widows
\nCreek, a tributary of the Tennessee River. The intake for Scottsboro,
\nAla.‘s water supply lies
\nabout 20 miles downstream<\/a> of the spill site.<\/p>\n
\nclear hazards, many of these coal ash dumps are unregulated not only by
\nthe federal government—they’re virtually unregulated at the state
\nlevel as well. For example, most states don’t require groundwater
\nmonitoring and runoff collection at coal ash impoundments, and more than
\n half don’t require liners or financial assurances to guarantee the
\nowners can pay for cleanup of any contamination that might occur.<\/p>\n
\n a situation that needs to be fixed,” said attorney Lisa Evans, a former
\n EPA official who now works with the environmental law firm
\nEarthjustice. “We’re talking about a potential loss of human life.”\n<\/p>\n
\n waters<\/strong><\/p>\n
\n at the Kingston plant in Tennessee aren’t the only threat posed by
\nunregulated coal ash impoundments. Most of the more than 100 known and
\nsuspected cases of environmental damages caused by coal ash that have
\nbeen documented by the EPA and environmental groups involve contaminants
\n from the ash seeping into nearby groundwater and surface water supplies
\n from impoundments, which are typically unlined.<\/p>\n
\nrecent EPA
\n risk assessment<\/a> found that people who live near coal ash
\nimpoundments and drink from wells have as much as a 1 in 50 chance of
\ngetting cancer due to contamination with arsenic, one of the most common
\n and dangerous pollutants in coal ash. The same risk assessment found
\nthat living near coal ash impoundments also increases the risk of damage
\n to the liver, kidneys, lungs and other organs.<\/p>\n
\nconsequence of efforts to make burning coal cleaner, new technology to
\ncollect airborne coal ash from the smokestacks of power plants has
\nincreased the concentration of toxic contaminants in coal ash,
\nheightening its public health and environmental risks.<\/p>\n
\ndangers of coal ash aren’t just hypothetical—it’s been linked to at
\nleast 100 cases of toxic contamination across the country. The following
\n examples were detailed in a recent
\n report<\/a> by Earthjustice and the Environmental Integrity Project:\n<\/p>\n
\nFlorida’s Hillsborough County, thallium and manganese leaching from a
\ncoal ash dump have contaminated off-site groundwater at levels exceeding
\n federal drinking water standards, while arsenic has contaminated
\non-site groundwater at levels 11 times above standards.<\/p>\n
\n Wateree Station<\/strong> in Eastover, S.C., arsenic contaminated groundwater
\n at the site at 18 times the federal drinking water standard, according
\nto the same report. The contamination has migrated to adjacent property
\nand is accumulating in catfish in the nearby Wateree River.<\/p>\n
\n permit limits, according to publicly available monitoring data, while
\nfish taken from nearby Little Scary Creek have registered selenium
\nlevels above what the state considers safe for human consumption.
\nExposure to excessive levels of selenium over the short term can cause
\nnausea, vomiting and diarrhea, and over time can result in neurological
\neffects.<\/p>\n
\nSutton Steam Plant<\/strong> on the Cape Fear River near Wilmington, N.C. has
\nbeen detected at levels as high as 29 times the federal drinking water
\nstandard and is migrating off-site, according to state monitoring data.
\nAnd Sutton is no exception: An
\n independent analysis<\/a> of state data found that every one of 13 coal
\nash impoundments located next to North Carolina power plants owned by
\nProgress Energy and Duke Energy that were tested are leaking
\ncontamination to groundwater.<\/p>\n
\nhazardous ingredients of coal ash through means other than the water
\nsupply. At Progress Energy’s Skyland plant near Asheville, N.C.,
\ndried-out ash from a poorly managed impoundment blew through the air
\nonto a neighboring condominium community, accumulating on residents’
\nhomes, lawns and cars. A lab
\n analysis<\/a> done as part of the state’s investigation into the
\nincident found that the material contained highly toxic, cancer-causing
\nelements including arsenic, chromium, and radioactive strontium.<\/p>\n
\n coal ash in landfills, as well as the use of coal ash as a substitute
\nfor fill dirt in construction projects, have also been proven to cause
\nenvironmental damage.<\/p>\n
\nexposure to coal ash can take years to develop, but in some cases the
\nimpact has been more acute. For example, leaking coal ash impoundments
\nat PPL Montana’s Colstrip power plant in Rosebud County, Mont.
\ncontaminated a well at a nearby Moose Lodge, where members suffered
\nstomach ailments from drinking the water. Fifty-seven Colstrip
\nresidents, including members of the Moose Lodge, filed a lawsuit against
\n the company that was eventually settled
\n for $25 million<\/a>.<\/p>\n
\nway,” plaintiffs attorney Jory Ruggiero said<\/a> at the time. “You can’t hide the facts when you’re testing wells and
\nthey’re coming up contaminated.”<\/p>\n
\n growing public health and environmental concerns—along with the
\nKingston disaster in Tennessee—have brought the country to a
\nwatershed moment in confronting the dangers of coal ash.<\/p>\n
\nregulatory alternatives put forward by the EPA this month include stark
\ndifferences. Both proposals would regulate coal ash under the Resource Conservation and
\nRecovery Act<\/a>, the primary federal law governing solid waste. But one
\n option would regulate it more strictly as a “special waste” under RCRA
\n Subtitle C<\/a>, which governs hazardous waste, while the other would
\nregulate it less strictly under RCRA
\n Subtitle D<\/a>, which applies to ordinary waste. Regulating coal ash
\nunder RCRA Subtitle C would give EPA clear enforcement authority, while
\nplacing it under Subtitle D would give EPA the power only to set
\nguidelines for managing coal ash, leaving oversight programs to the
\nstates and enforcement to citizen lawsuits.<\/p>\n
\n lobbied fiercely against treating coal ash as hazardous waste, arguing
\nthat such an approach would be too costly and would discourage efforts
\nto recycle coal ash into other products. Meanwhile, environmental groups
\n make the case that coal ash is clearly hazardous and should be treated
\nthat way under law.<\/p>\n
\nash regulation up for public debate, environmental advocates like Scott
\nSlesinger, legislative director for the Natural Resources Defense
\nCouncil, say citizens must speak up if they want to avoid another
\ntragedy like the one that devastated the lives of Penny and Evyn Dodson
\nand their neighbors.<\/p>\n
\nKingston, Tenn. finally got the nation’s attention to regulate toxic
\ncoal ash,” said Slesinger. “We learned in Kingston, as we recently
\nlearned in the Gulf, that catastrophic failures associated with dirty
\ncarbon happen with tragic results.”\n<\/p>\n
\n Disaster in East Tennessee: It’s been nearly a year and a half since
\nthe massive TVA coal ash spill. But for communities touched by the spill, it’s an ongoing catastrophe.
<\/em><\/em>\n<\/p>\n
\neditorial director of Facing South<\/a>. This piece is the first installment
\nin an in-depth, week-long series on the growing national problem of coal
\n ash and the political battle over regulations.<\/em>\n<\/p>\n
![\"\"](\"http:\/\/pixel.quantserve.com\/pixel\/p-8bUhLiluj0fAw.gif?labels=pub.29804.rss.News.18590,cat.News.rss\"\/)
<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"