Settling Coal Ash Controversy

Settling Coal Ash Controversy

May 12, 2010

Ken Silverstein
EnergyBiz Insider
Editor-in-Chief

The controversy surrounding coal ash may finally settle. National regulators have issued a proposal and have given industry three months to respond -- one that presents two distinct possibilities while still allowing the beneficial reuse of the coal combustion byproduct in such things as cement.

While the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency has said that its recommendations are the first time ever that coal ash would fall under national rules, it nevertheless has asked interested parties to weigh in on the options. The first of its solutions would be to regulate the toxic material under federal hazardous waste laws. The second would allow the EPA to make recommendations to the states, which would maintain control. In both cases, the landfills that take in coal ash would need liners and groundwater monitoring devices.

Immediate reactions are predictable with environmental groups preferring the stricter alternative and business interests opting for the second that would keep the nonhazardous waste label. Because the Obama administration has learned not to swing for the fence but instead to try and hit singles and doubles, it is likely to go with some variation of the stricter -- state -- controls.

"We now expect the comment period will result in such aggressive criticism ... that the EPA will ultimately finalize a rule that provides additional guidance and/or changes to existing state-administered programs," says Christine Tezak, senior analyst in Energy & Environment Policy Research with Baird & Co. "This outcome would be welcome news to state regulators who raised objections to a potential hazardous waste designation."

Coal ash, which contains contaminants such as mercury and arsenic, is disposed of in two forms: The first is as a liquid and which goes into large surface impoundments. The second is as a solid that goes into landfills. Under EPA's plan, the first method would be phased out over five years.

The Tennessee Valley Authority, which had a dam burst in December 2008 that spewed 5.4 million cubic yards of coal ash, used the liquid disposal method at the Kingston Fossil Plant. It says that it is now in the process of switching the way in which it discharges coal ash. It will no longer dispose of wet ash in impoundments; rather it will convert it to dry ash and then bury it in places with liners and ground water monitoring equipment.

Right now, EPA says that power plants create annually 136 million tons of coal ash. That number, though, is expected to rise to 175 million by 2015. Last year, the regulator released a report saying that 49 coal ash sites were considered a "high hazard," meaning that if an accident occurred it could result in deaths. It identified another 71 sites that it says are responsible for the leakage of heavy metals into ground water.

Political Capital

If the toxin would be regulated at as a hazardous material, the agency says that would cost industry $1.5 billion a year whereas if it is viewed as a nonhazardous byproduct, it would run $600 million a year. By contrast, TVA is spending at least $1.2 billion to clean up the accident that covers 300 acres -- something that EPA contends might have been prevented if either of its two proposals had been in effect.

Under both approaches, EPA would leave in place an exemption that allows for the beneficial recycling of coal ash. Basically, such coal combustion residuals are reused and placed in concrete, cement and wallboard -- a huge business that alleviates already stressed landfills and a process that EPA says will keep the public safe. Today, about 54 million tons annually of the material is recycled.

"EPA supports the legitimate beneficial use of coal combustion residuals," says Mathy Stanislaus, assistant administrator for EPA's Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response that will implement the proposals. "Environmentally sound beneficial uses of ash conserve resources, reduce greenhouse gas emissions, lessen the need for waste disposal units, and provide significant domestic economic benefits."

Industry groups say that giving EPA primary control would have an adverse effect, arguing that local utility commissioners are closer to the issues and that using a hazardous waste label would be too costly at a time of economic uncertainty. Inspections routinely occur, they add, noting that if problems are discovered they are then fixed.

"With a limited number of facilities certified to handle 'hazardous waste,' this option could impose costly transportation requirements to ship coal ash across the country to one of the certified facilities," adds the National Association of Manufacturers. "A 'hazardous waste' classification also raises the specter of lawsuits that could create uncertainty and place companies at a competitive disadvantage."

Environmentalists counter those arguments by saying that for years the power sector has been dumping coal ash into unlined landfills and ponds. They are imploring EPA to manage the situation, saying that the toxic byproduct creeps into ground soil and harms human and aquatic life. And if it escapes in large quantities, the clean up is extraordinarily difficult.

"The science is clear that coal ash is hazardous waste, and we are confident this administration will stand by its commitment to follow the science in its policy decisions," says Trip Van Noppen, president of Earthjustice. He says that the "sky will not fall" if coal ash is classified as a hazardous waste.

While the Obama administration would probably prefer the stricter guidelines, it is unlikely to expend the necessary political capital. Doing so might sacrifice its other national policy goals. Instead, EPA will opt for more incremental changes, choosing to toughen disposal standards and to let the states maintain their leadership role.

To subscribe or visit go to: http://www.energycentral.com