After coal is burned at power A growing share of the nation’s coal ash is being reused and recycled, The latest But there are growing concerns about other reuses Another As federal officials consider North Carolina: A case study in North Carolina has long been a leader in promoting “It is The letter But the use of coal ash Facing South examined records from the state The Unlike new surface * In response, ReUse removed the coal ash from The EPA’s new proposals for coal ash regulation don’t * At the A 2004 * Though our own review of the division’s The problem of groundwater The areas of North Carolina While Building a community on coal ash<\/strong><\/p>\n Water contamination is not the only For Progress Energy’s permit allows coal ash with Furthermore, some coal ash fill sites in North Among those was the Following Employees of a nearby correctional facility, who for Pulver’s experience in trying to track down the While the Edgecombe County When In response to mounting worries about the site’s safety, However, a press ‘We’ve been unable to bring attention to this’<\/strong><\/p>\n The problems that have occurred at Under North Carolina’s rules, However, State officials aren’t Following Instead, the measure simply subjected the But even that basic safeguard was difficult to This Meanwhile, spurred by the Kingston coal ash But “We’ve Since the “We’ve got more work to do in a day than While North Carolina’s What The lack of strong state rules for The EPA’s How In “Because Related Links:<\/strong><\/p>\n A chat with energy analyst Trevor Houser about how to assess climate legislation<\/a><\/p>\n Coal: Good News, and An Opportunity for More<\/a><\/p>\n
\nplants, leaving massive heaps of ash, not all of the waste ends up in
\nlandfills and impoundments like the one that failed
\n catastrophically in east Tennessee<\/a> in December 2008.<\/p>\n
\nfinding its way into building materials, publicly used land and even
\nfarmland growing food crops. And despite the presence of toxins like
\narsenic, chromium, and lead found in coal ash, these reuses go largely
\nunregulated by state and federal officials.<\/p>\n
\n report<\/a> from the American Coal Ash Association, the industry group
\nrepresenting major coal ash producers, found that of the more than 136
\nmillion tons of coal ash produced in 2008, about 44 percent—60
\nmillion tons—was reused. Some of the reuses for coal ash, such as
\nrecycling it into concrete, are not very controversial even among
\nenvironmental advocates, since they’re believed to lock in toxic
\ncontaminants.<\/p>\n
\nof coal ash. For example, the recent revelation that
\nChinese-manufactured drywall made with coal ash was releasing noxious
\nchemicals inside people’s homes spurred a
\n CBS investigation<\/a> that also found problems with U.S.-made drywall
\nproducts. The discovery led the Consumer Product Safety Commission to
\ncall for a closer look at drywall products made with coal ash.<\/p>\n
\n popular destination for coal ash that is raising concern is its use as a
\n substitute for fill dirt in construction projects. Because this reuse
\ncan put coal ash directly in contact with groundwater, environmental and
\n public health advocates fear serious contamination problems. Right now,
\n the Environmental Protection Agency is mulling
\n new rules<\/a> for the use of coal ash, including whether it should
\nstrictly regulate ash used in fills or simply put forward guidelines and
\n leave oversight up to the states.<\/p>\n
\nhow to regulate reuse of coal ash, North Carolina’s experience in
\noverseeing structural fills provides a case study with valuable lessons
\nfor the entire country.<\/p>\n
\nneglect?<\/strong><\/p>\n
\nthe use of coal ash as structural fill. Heavily dependent on coal, with 60
\n percent of its electricity<\/a> generated by coal-fired plants, the
\nstate has a glut of ash to contend with—and has been encouraging
\nutilities to use it as fill for more than 20 years.<\/p>\n
\nencouraging to see the commitment being made to develop reuse
\napplications for the coal ash as opposed to the continued use of county
\nlandfills,” stated a
\n 1989 letter<\/a> from North Carolina’s solid waste chief to ReUse
\nTechnology, now known as Full Circle Solutions. The Georgia-based firm
\nis a wholly owned subsidiary of Charlotte-based Cogentrix, which in turn
\n is a wholly owned subsidiary of The Goldman Sachs Group and operates a number of
\nsmall coal-fired power plants<\/a> in the eastern U.S.<\/p>\n
\ncontinued, “The Solid Waste Management Section has and will continue to
\nsupport the reuse and recycling of waste materials when performed in a
\nmanner consistent with the environment.”<\/p>\n
\nas fill has not always been done in a manner “consistent with the
\nenvironment.” Even though North Carolina began overseeing coal ash fills
\n in 1994 after groundwater contamination was found at one fill site,
\nstate records and independent research show that the rules—which were
\n cooperatively written by utilities and state regulators—have failed
\nto prevent coal ash fills from damaging the environment and threatening
\npublic health.<\/p>\n
\nDivision of Waste Management, which oversees the use of dry coal ash as
\nfill, and the Division of Water Quality, which is responsible for fills
\nthat use wet coal ash from impoundments like the one that failed at the
\nTennessee Valley Authority’s Kingston plant. We also considered the
\nfindings of a recent report from the Sierra Club’s North Carolina
\nchapter titled “Unlined
\n Landfills? The Story of Coal Ash Waste in Our Backyard.”<\/a><\/p>\n
\n public record shows that dry coal ash was used as a substitute for fill
\n dirt at more than 70 locations across North Carolina from the late
\n1980s through 2009 (click here<\/a> for a spreadsheet with details about the locations). Sites sitting on
\ntop of coal ash fills include airports, roads, industrial parks,
\nshopping centers, office buildings, a municipal gym, a church, a science
\n center at Duke University, a rifle range at a Marine base, and
\nlivestock pens at a commercial hog farm.<\/p>\n
\nimpoundments where coal ash is dumped in North Carolina, which now must
\nbe lined under state law, liners are not mandated for even the largest
\nfill sites. As a result, coal ash has contaminated groundwater or
\nsurface water in at least three structural fill sites across the state:<\/p>\n
\n At the Alamac Road site in Robeson County, N.C.<\/strong>, about 45,000
\ntons of coal ash from small power plants owned by Cogentrix were used as
\n structural fill on 12.8 acres of land. ReUse began placing ash at the
\nsite in 1992 without proper state authorization, and state tests of
\ngroundwater near the site found levels of contaminants exceeding state
\ngroundwater standards. In 1993, the North Carolina Division of Solid
\nWaste Management issued a notice
\n of violation<\/a>, stating that tests showed “levels of arsenic,
\ncadmium, chromium, lead, selenium, sulfate and total dissolved solids”
\nexceeding safety standards—and that some of the contaminated samples
\ncame from a monitoring site near a private residence thought to have a
\ndrinking water well.<\/p>\n
\n the site in 1995 with plans to use it elsewhere, including at an
\nagricultural demonstration project testing the ability of coal ash to
\nenhance crop yields—an increasingly common
\n way for coal ash to be reused<\/a>, especially in the Southeast and
\nMidwest.<\/p>\n
\naddress the agricultural use of coal ash, but the agency and the U.S.
\nDepartment of Agriculture are currently studying such uses and are
\nscheduled to release a report of their findings in 2012.<\/p>\n
\n Swift Creek site in Nash County, N.C.<\/strong>, ReUse placed coal ash
\nfrom Cogentrix plants as fill on a property along Highway 301 beginning
\nin 1994. Two years later, the company got special
\n permission<\/a> from the Division of Waste Management to also use ash
\nfrom a facility burning a mix of coal and shredded tires, which contain arsenic<\/a> and other
\n toxic substances.<\/p>\n
\n letter<\/a> from the state agency to ReUse, which by then had changed
\nits named to Full Circle Solutions, reported that state tests of
\ngroundwater samples taken near the site found arsenic at almost three
\ntimes the state standard for groundwater and lead at more than four
\ntimes the standard. The letter stated, “The detection of contamination
\nbeyond the boundary of the fill shows that constituents from the [coal
\nash] are migrating.”<\/p>\n
\nfiles did not turn up any mention of violations at the location, Sierra
\nClub found records showing that state environmental inspectors
\ndiscovered high levels of arsenic, iron, and selenium in wetlands at the Arthurs
\n Creek coal ash fill site in Northampton County<\/strong> in 2009. Since 2004,
\n the 21-acre site has been the dumping ground for ash from
\nKentucky-based energy giant E.ON’s Roanoke Valley Energy plant near
\nWeldon, N.C. There are plans to eventually build office buildings and a
\nparking lot atop the fill.<\/p>\n
\ncontamination at structural fill sites across North Carolina may be even
\n more widespread, because state law does not require groundwater
\nmonitoring at such sites—or even require regular inspections. Most of
\n the problems that have been found to date were discovered following
\ncomplaints from nearby residents.<\/p>\n
\ncontaminated by coal ash fills are notable for being poor and having
\nlarge African-American, Latino, and Native American populations.<\/p>\n
\n the statewide poverty rate is 14.6 percent, the poverty rates for the
\ncounties with known damage cases from coal ash fills are much higher—
\n15.5 percent in Nash County, 26.6 percent in Northampton, and 30.4
\npercent in Robeson, according to Census Bureau data<\/a>.
\n Those counties’ non-white populations are also greater than the state’s
\n 26.1 percent, at 39.4 percent in Nash, 59.4 percent in Northampton and
\n64.2 percent in Robeson.<\/p>\n
\n problem that’s occurred at structural fill sites across North Carolina.
\n At some of the sites, work occurred without the required notification
\nof state regulators. At others, the companies improperly excavated the
\nsites before placing the ash, increasing the risk that the coal ash
\nwould come in contact with groundwater. And in some instances, coal ash
\ngenerators may have made ash available for use as fill that shouldn’t
\nhave been allowed because it contained excessive levels of contaminants.<\/p>\n
\n example, state Division of Water Quality records show that Progress
\nEnergy distributed ash for fill use that exceeded limits for arsenic.
\n“Based on your 2007 annual report, 14,025 tons of ash was distributed in
\n December of 2007 in which the arsenic concentrations of all three
\nsamples exceeded the ceiling and monthly average concentration,”
\naccording to a March
\n 2009 letter<\/a> from the agency to the company. “Based on the 2008
\nannual report, five out of the 12 ash samples exceeded the ceiling
\nconcentration.”<\/p>\n
\narsenic concentrations exceeding those limits to be distributed for fill
\n as long as it will be overlain by impervious surfaces like pavement so
\nrainwater can’t penetrate and leach out contaminants. But the division
\nwas apparently not sure that was the case: It asked the company for a
\nsite plan showing where the ash was used, but no plan was included in
\nthe files.<\/p>\n
\nCarolina had problems with erosion that left the toxic waste exposed—
\nposing a direct threat to local residents.<\/p>\n
\nFountain Industrial Park site near the city of Rocky Mount in Edgecombe
\nCounty, N.C. In 1989, ReUse Technology in cooperation with the Edgecombe
\n County Development Corp. began placing at the site ash from various
\nCogentrix plants as well as from the coal-fired cogeneration facility at
\n the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill.<\/p>\n
\nHurricane Floyd in 1999, the industrial park was turned into a trailer
\npark for about 370 eastern North Carolina families displaced by the
\ndisaster. Many of the residents were from Princeville, a historic
\nAfrican-American community that was devastated by flooding from the
\nstorm. By that time the soil covering the fill had eroded, leaving ash
\nexposed.<\/p>\n
\nyears had watched industrial-sized trucks dumping large quantities of
\nunknown materials at the site, began asking if this was a good place to
\nlocate a trailer park. They brought their concerns to the attention of
\nSaladin Muhammad with the group Black Workers for Justice, who was
\nworking with trailer park residents. He in turn discussed the situation
\nwith graduate students at the University of North Carolina’s School of
\nPublic Health, and one of them—Aaron Pulver—investigated the
\nsituation for his master’s
\n paper<\/a>.<\/p>\n
\nhistory of the site shows how difficult it can be under the current
\nregulatory environment for the public to get information about the use
\nof coal ash for structural fill.<\/p>\n
\ndevelopment officer told Pulver a study of the land had been done prior
\nto construction of the trailer park, she refused to release it to him— as did the director of the N.C. Office of Temporary Housing.<\/p>\n
\n Pulver finally managed to get a copy of the report, he discovered there
\n had actually been no thorough testing of the site for possible health
\nimpacts before the placement of the trailers. His adviser, UNC
\nepidemiology professor Dr. Steve Wing, raised concerns about inhalation
\nof the coal ash dust and children ingesting it while playing in the
\ndirt.<\/p>\n
\nepidemiologists with the state health department collected samples from
\nthe trailer park for testing, comparing the
\n results<\/a> to EPA’s standards for potential health effects. One of the
\n samples exceeded those standards for two contaminants, with arsenic at
\n25 milligrams per kilogram compared to a recommended level of 22, and
\nchromium at 31 mg\/kg compared to the standard of 30.<\/p>\n
\n release<\/a> put out by the N.C. Department of Health and Human Services
\n—under the headline “SOIL TESTS FIND NO PROBLEMS AT FOUNTAIN TRAILER
\nPARK”—said only that the soil samples “showed no significant risk”
\nfor the residents. It did not mention the elevated arsenic and chromium
\nlevels.<\/p>\n
\ncoal ash structural fill sites across North Carolina highlight the
\ndifficulty states face in overseeing ash placement programs in the
\nabsence of federal regulations.<\/p>\n
\ncompanies placing dry coal ash as fill are supposed to record its
\npresence on the property deed—a provision fought by Duke Energy,
\nwhich along with Progress Energy is one of the state’s two big
\ninvestor-owned utilities and a major producer of coal ash.<\/p>\n
\n the Sierra Club found that only 56 percent of the closed structural
\nfill sites that held 1,000 cubic yards or more of coal ash had complied
\nwith the deed-recording requirement.<\/p>\n
\nrequired to do their own tests of coal ash fill to see if it has
\npotentially dangerous levels of arsenic of other contaminants—that’s
\nleft up to the companies, and there’s no rule to check the accuracy of
\nwhat the companies report. No advance permits are required for fills,
\neven for the largest sites. And while the state can comment on a
\ncompany’s coal ash fill plans, it does not have the power to deny them.<\/p>\n
\n the Kingston disaster in Tennessee in 2008, state Rep. Pricey Harrison
\n(D-Guilford) tried to change the way coal ash is regulated in North
\nCarolina, including its use in structural fills. In 2009, she introduced
\n a bill<\/a> that would have created a permitting system for coal ash fills—but
\nthe final
\n version<\/a> of the legislation that passed the General Assembly and was
\n signed into law by Gov. Beverly Perdue (D) had the structural fill
\nprovision stripped out.<\/p>\n
\n state’s massive coal ash impoundments to dam safety rules, an approach
\naimed at preventing catastrophes like Kingston but that does nothing to
\nprotect against potentially more insidious environmental contamination
\nfrom ash fills.<\/p>\n
\nwin at the state capitol, with the politically
\n powerful utility companies<\/a> and electric cooperatives working
\nagainst it. “They fought every aspect of the bill tooth and nail,”
\nHarrison said. “They lobbied hard against even a hearing.”<\/p>\n
\nweek Harrison introduced another
\n bill<\/a> to better regulate structural fill sites in North Carolina.
\nAnd as co-chair of the state Environmental Review Commission and House
\nEnvironment Committee, she is also planning on holding hearings on coal
\nash next month.<\/p>\n
\ndisaster in Tennessee, North Carolina regulators have stepped up their
\ninspections of structural fill sites. In 2009, they visited 48 sites—
\nand found violations at 28 of them, ranging from water contamination to a
\n lack of cover that could stop coal ash from escaping fill sites.<\/p>\n
\n the regulators themselves acknowledge that more must be done.<\/p>\n
\n been unable to bring the attention to this that we feel it needs,” said
\n Paul Crissman, chief of the Division of Waste Management’s Solid Waste
\nSection, which oversees dry coal ash fills.<\/p>\n
\nrecession-triggered state budget crisis began in 2008, Crissman’s staff
\nhas declined from 54 to 49 people, while the workload has increased. He
\ndoes not expect that situation to change any time soon, with state
\nlawmakers facing a $1
\n billion budget gap<\/a>.<\/p>\n
\n workers to put at it,” Crissman added.<\/p>\n
\nregulatory approach to coal ash fill has proven inadequate for ensuring
\nagainst environmental damages, the administration of Gov. Perdue does
\nnot support strict federal regulation of coal ash as hazardous waste. In
\n fact, her departments of Transportation<\/a> and Commerce<\/a> are both on record opposing that regulatory approach. The state’s Utility Commission<\/a> and the commission’s Public
\n Staff<\/a> also oppose strict regulation, citing cost concerns.<\/p>\n
\n next from Washington?<\/strong><\/p>\n
\nusing coal ash as structural fill in places like North Carolina has
\ncaused community health and environmental advocates to rest their hopes
\nfor protective standards on Washington.<\/p>\n
\nmuch-anticipated new proposals
\n for regulating coal ash<\/a> released earlier this month allow for the
\ncontinued recycling and reuse of coal ash. However, they draw a
\ndistinction between turning the waste into manufactured products, which
\nwould not be regulated under the proposals, and the reuse of coal ash in
\n large fills, which as the EPA notes pose “an array of environmental
\nissues” and would be regulated as a type of land disposal.<\/p>\n
\nthe EPA will address the issue won’t become clear until after the
\ncomment period for the proposed rules end and final regulations are
\nannounced. The agency has not announced any time line for that.<\/p>\n
\n the meantime, patchwork and scatter-shot state regulations like those
\nin North Carolina continue to carry the day—a situation that
\nenvironmental advocates say amounts to allowing utilities to push their
\nash waste problems onto the public in dangerous ways.<\/p>\n
\nthis ‘reuse’ is subject to little or no regulation in many states,” contend<\/a> the watchdog groups Earthjustice and the Environmental Integrity
\nProject, “some structural fills may be little more than dumpsites in
\ndisguise.”<\/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":"