Pouring on Coal Waste

Pouring on Coal Waste

May 11, 2009

Ken Silverstein
EnergyBiz Insider
Editor-in-Chief

During last year's Christmas season, the Tennessee Valley Authority delivered the bad news to its East Tennessee neighbors that one of its dikes had burst and released 5.4 million cubic yards of coal fly ash into the surrounding areas. While no one died, water tests indicated elevated levels of deadly pollutants that had killed hundreds of fish.

TVA, the nation's largest wholesale provider of electricity, is still battling the disaster and it is projected that it will spend at least $850 million cleaning it up. But now Congress and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency are also examining the issue to determine if coal ash should be federally regulated under hazardous waste laws or if those rules should continue to be left to the states.

Coal waste now falls under the guidelines set for non-municipal, non-hazardous waste. The rules governing its disposal are vague, allowing the substance to be regulated by the state that establishes the appropriate rules for each site. At present, most such waste is buried in landfills. But promising technologies now exist that allow it to be converted into other, more useful products.

The controversies surrounding coal combustion byproducts are not new. In fact, in 2000 the EPA determined there would be a need for national regulations to deal with such "waste," saying that it could pose serious health effects and that viable pollution controls may be currently lacking. However, the agency went on to say that coal waste should not regulated as a "hazardous material," noting that such a classification might stigmatize it and therefore give some recyclers a reason not to use it.

"The states have consistently gone on record as opposing federal regulation of coal combustion byproducts as hazardous waste, explaining that it is unnecessary and would effectively end the beneficial use of coal ash in many states," says John McManus, vice president of environmental services for American Electric Power, in congressional testimony. "We agree with the states that any additional federal controls should focus on filling any gaps in existing state regulations."

The accident at TVA's Kingston Plant is said to be 100 times bigger than the Exxon Valdez oil spill in 1989 in which nearly 11 billions gallons of oil escaped. The issue, though, is of national importance. Coal combustion byproducts are one of the largest waste streams produced in this country, with about 131 million tons generated in 2007, says the EPA. Of that, about 36 percent was disposed of in landfills while 38 percent of it was beneficially re-used to make such things cement.

In a 2007 report, EPA evaluated 85 coal ash sites out of a total of about 600. It discovered that 24 of those it had examined led to harm of human health or the environment. Another 42 cases resulted in potential damages, it concluded. EPA has said it will issue new rules for coal ash by year-end.

"Air pollution controls create mountains of ash and sludge, and these already staggering volumes will grow rapidly as companies move to comply with new Clean Air Act requirements," says Eric Schaeffer, director of the Environmental Integrity Project. "But cleaner air should not mean dirtier water, and the EPA needs to establish strict standards to make sure that we are not just trading one problem for another."

Mitigating Problems

Environmental and civic action groups are voicing their concerns to TVA and are protesting that the utility's coal portfolio (51 percent of its total 34,615 megawatts of generating capacity) is devastating the communities it serves. A few weeks after the Kingston accident, TVA said that another coal waste incident had occurred at one of its plants in Alabama.

Those activists say that national standards would have mitigated the problems, noting that the contaminants from coal waste can leach into groundwater or surface water and cause cancer. Moreover, because federal regulations are absent, many states are struggling to deal with the subject, adds Rep. James Oberstar, D-Minn., chair of the House Transportation Committee. Even if a state had rigorous laws on the books, he says that a level playing field is necessary to ensure the proper disposal of coal ash.

The utility industry responds by saying that it has implemented several measures to guarantee the structural integrity of the retention ponds that house coal ash. The industry emphasizes that the sites are designed, constructed and maintained in accordance with prudent engineering practices and that those impoundments are routinely inspected. If any impairment is discovered, it is then fixed. Utilities, generally, are placing so-called synthetic liners in their ponds to help prevent leakage.

In the case of AEP, it says that it has operated coal ash storage facilities for decades and that it currently controls 40 of them. The utility says that its large dams are inspected annually by qualified engineers. As for TVA, however, small leaks at its Kingston facility had been detected as early as 2003. But it appears that any corrective actions to shore up the relevant retention walls were insufficient.

"TVA is committed to recovering the ash that was released from Kingston and restoring the area in a manner that will protect public health and the environment," says TVA's Environmental Executive Anda Ray. "We will remove the ash from the river channel as safely and efficiently as possible and restore navigation."

The utility sector has altered its position in the wake of TVA's misfortune. The industry now agrees that federal rules are necessary -- but only those that would supplement current coal ash disposal laws on the states' books. Regulating the byproduct as a hazardous waste is ill-advised, power companies reason, maintaining that the shift in public policy would result in less recycling and more pollution.

Industry's conciliatory position may ultimately appease the EPA. But activists are unconvinced and are trying to persuade the agency that the spill could have been avoided with tougher national laws.