More than a year after 1 billion or so gallons of water polluted by ash spilled from a coal-burning power plant in Tennessee, the Obama administration is struggling to decide whether to declare such waste "hazardous."

Slapping a hazardous label on coal ash and other coal byproducts would trigger the writing of a federal disposal standard to replace a patchwork of state regulations. The standard could outright ban wet storage ponds -- such as the one that ruptured in December 2008 in Kingston, Tenn. -- and require landfill liners, leak controls and groundwater monitoring at ash dumps.

The industry also fears that the hazardous designation would kill an ash-recycling enterprise that the Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI) says generates $5 billion to $10 billion a year in revenue for coal-burning utilities. In 2008, about 60 million tons -- 45 percent of the 136 million tons of coal-combustion ash that the industry generated -- were used to fill abandoned mines, make concrete and shore up eroding highway embankments, according to the American Coal Ash Association.

The designation would also cause disposal costs to soar. Ken Ladwig, a senior program manager for EPRI, said a hazardous designation could raise the cost of ash disposal from $10-15 a ton to $150 per ton, a total of $10 billion to $15 billion more a year. And that estimate cost could balloon, he added, if the designation chokes recycling programs.

The American Society for Testing and Materials International, a coalition that sets material and building standards, warned U.S. EPA last month that it would not support the use of coal ash in concrete if the ash is declared a hazardous waste. "If a material is excluded from the standard, you're not going to be able to use it," said Jim Roewer, executive director of the Utility Solid Waste Activities Group.

Said Tom Addams, executive director of the coal ash group, "A hazardous determination would make builders reluctant to use coal ash not because of what it may contain, but because of tort activity. If litigation was filed on a national basis, it would be mind-boggling to see what the defense costs were."

But environmentalists pushing for the hazardous designation say the industry groups are trying to scare EPA away from protecting waterways and groundwater from arsenic, selenium and other heavy metals that leach from power plant ash. There is no evidence, they say, that the "beneficial use" of ash would stop with a hazardous-waste designation.

"I have never seen the first study or piece of data to substantiate the claim that there would be this stigma that would stop recycling of coal ash," said Jeff Stant, director of the Environmental Integrity Project's campaign for federal regulation of coal-combustion waste. "It's important to note that the people who have been making that claim are the ones who have a financial interest in not having the designation."

8 Comments

1. 1. For a healthy earth 09:01 PM 1/13/10

   The primary consideration with regard to the regulation of coal ash should be first and foremost the public health based on its effect in any use, on the environment (air, earth and water). The purpose of the EPA is to protect the environment and the public health. It is not to protect the interests of corporate profits or operations, except to distinguish what should be allowed to them on condition that it does not compromise the environment or the public health.
   
   And then, if and when the use of recycled ash is proposed, and perhaps allowed, a complete report that includes studies that clearly demonstrate on a scientific basis, that that reuse in any form will not endanger the environment or the public health. That report should be available in full to the public.
   
   Burning coal ash as a "recycled fuel" for energy plants should not be allowed.
   
   It is time that we admit that old fuels should be phased out. They should to transition their operations into the newer methods of producing energy with safe, environmentally friendly methods. For example: why wouldn't they begin to develop plants that recycle our abundant dump wastes-to-methane-gas fuelled plants? In fact, I would not be opposed to government grants to help them in this transition.
   
   Every large city, or a network of small cities could use their own garbage to produce electricity for their own needs, thus elminating the costly expense item of waste disposal from their municipal budgets by converting it to fuel for energy production. Why would these coal-burning corporations not see the promising future in the development of these plants for themselves, and begin to work with thse municipalities toward this goal?

   Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this

2. 2. JamesDavis 08:16 AM 1/14/10

   I think 10 billion a year in profit is the main concern not to want coal ash regulated. It has been scientifically proven that coal ash is a deadly byproduct of coal and should never come in contact with any living tissue. The states that are swamped in coal ash have epidemic porportions of disease and illnesses. In West Virginia, there is so much disease and illness caused by coal and coal ash that you cannot afford health insurance...if you can even get health insurance in the state -- which you cannot.
   
   Stop the coal ash and clean it up and health insurance costs will dramatically drop.
   
   If turning coal ash into concrete neutralizes the deadly chemicals, then by all means, turn it into concrete. In either way, we need to quickly get away from burning fossils for energy.

   Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this

3. 3. Pandonodrim 10:30 AM 1/14/10

   This is just another example of the irresponsible coal companies trying to keep as many of their costs externalized as possible. As long as they are not held accountable for the damage they cause they will continue to cause it.
   
   There is no question as to whether or not coal ash waste is hazardous or not. The question is are we going to let these companies continue to profit by selling their hazardous waste instead of properly disposing it?
   
   Ultimately the best solution here is to get off of coal power as soon as possible. When an industry can only stay "competitive" with cleaner, healthier alternatives by profiteering off of poisoning people, it's time to shut that industry down.

   Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this

4. 4. Asteroid Miner 02:11 AM 1/15/10

   Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this

5. 5. Asteroid Miner 02:16 AM 1/15/10

   Coal contains: URANIUM, ARSENIC, LEAD, MERCURY, Antimony, Cobalt, Nickel, Copper, Selenium, Barium, Fluorine, Silver, Beryllium, Iron, Sulfur, Boron, Titanium, Cadmium, Magnesium, Thorium, Calcium, Manganese, Vanadium, Chlorine, Aluminum, Chromium, Molybdenum and Zinc. There is so much of these elements in coal that cinders and coal smoke are actually valuable ores. We should be able to get all the uranium and thorium we need to fuel nuclear power plants for centuries by using cinders and smoke as ore. Remember that, to get a given amount of energy, you need on the order of 100 MILLION TIMES as much coal as uranium. That means the coal mine has to be 100 million times larger than the uranium mine, not counting the recycling of nuclear fuel. Unburned Coal also contains BENZENE, THE CANCER CAUSER. We can keep our mountains and forests and our health by switching from coal to nuclear power. We could get all of our uranium and thorium from coal ashes and cinders. The carbon content of coal ranges from 96% down to 25%, the remainder being rock of various kinds.
   
   Chinese industrial grade coal is sometimes stolen by peasants for cooking. The result is that the whole family dies of arsenic poisoning in days, not years because Chinese industrial grade coal contains large amounts of arsenic.
   
   I have zero financial interest in nuclear power, and I never have had a financial interest in nuclear power. My sole motivation in writing this is to avoid extinction due to global warming.
   
   Please see: http://www.ornl.gov/ORNLReview/rev26-34/text/coalmain.html

   Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this

6. 6. skbarry 05:30 PM 1/20/10

   Hey Patrick,
   
   It's kind of stupid to be putting a picture of half burned "charcoal" briquettes, somehow relating this to the existence of real mineral "coal" ash. Why not use a picture of any one of the enormous piles of real mineral "coal" ash that you could potentially find next to any one of hundreds of coal fired power plants in the US?
   
   Hopefully you realize that the ash from "charcoal" briquettes used for cooking our food does not contain anything near the same levels of carcinogenic, radioactive heavy metals like Cadmium, Thorium, or Uranium, as does ash from mineral "coal" used in the production of electric power.
   
   SCIAM, this is another example of what I would call "poor production quality" from the your media source, and/or the work of another of your "stupid sciencewriter bylines"
   
   SKB

   Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this

7. 7. skbarry in reply to Pandonodrim 07:05 PM 1/20/10

   GO Pandonodrim!
   
   SKB

   Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this

8. 8. yudanjiao 11:57 PM 7/12/10

   At times my heart crises out with longing to see all these things.If I can get so much pleasure from mere touch,how much more beauty <strong><a href="http://www.panjewellery.com/">pandora bracelets and charms</a></strong>must be revealed by sight.Yet, Those who have eyes apparently see little.The color and action which fills the world is taken for granted. It is human,perhaps, to appreciate little that which we have and to long for that which we have not,but it is a great pity that in the world of light the gift of sight is used only as a mere convenience rather than as a means of adding gullness to life...
   
   
   

   Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this