• E-Mail
• Print
• Larger
• Smaller

Published: Tuesday, May. 11, 2010 / Updated: Thursday, May. 13, 2010 02:49 PM

Is coal ash public health concern?

Lake Wylie’s Belmont plant among three on Catawba in nationwide controversy

LAKE WYLIE -- 

Some see potential economic benefits in coal ash, while others see the potential for endangering public safety. But experts on both sides say the rules governing the chemical byproduct could be changing.

Last week, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency proposed new rules for the regulation of coal ash, the first set of national guidelines on safe disposal and management of the residual material created by combustion at coal power plants.

The options include listing coal ash as a hazardous material or as non-hazardous, as it is now. The hazardous material listing would require the installation of liners for liquid surface impoundments, phasing them out in favor of the landfill storage of coal ash in solid form. The non-hazardous option would still require liners, but would allow continued use of surface impoundments.

Currently plants dispose of coal ash as a liquid in large impoundments or in solid form in landfills. Coal ash, according to the EPA, contains mercury, cadmium, arsenic, selenium and lead, among other potentially harmful materials. The agency states that coal ash can cause “significant public health concerns” when not disposed of properly; it can seep into groundwater and end up in drinking water sources.

“The time has come for common-sense national protections to ensure the safe disposal of coal ash,” said Lisa P. Jackson, agency administrator. “We’re proposing strong steps to address the serious risk of groundwater contamination and threats to drinking water and we’re also putting in place stronger safeguards against structural failures of coal ash impoundments. The health and the environment of all communities must be protected.”

Last summer, the coal ash controversy came to a head locally when the EPA listed three Duke Energy impoundments on the Catawba River north of Lake Wylie as among 44 “high hazard potential” sites nationwide. In all, the list included 10 company sites.

Duke argued the listing only considered the potential impact of coal ash contamination, not the likelihood that one would occur, making local populations and proximity to drinking water the only reasons one pond at Allen Steam Plant in Belmont and two at Riverbend in Mount Holly made the list. Catawba Riverkeeper David Merryman argued the ponds put the drinking water of as many as 2 million people in “direct, immediate risk.”

“These are engineered ash basins,” said Andy Thompson, spokesman for Duke. “They did inspect Plant Allen in 2009, and they gave us the highest rating they could give us. Our goal is safety, just as the EPA’s goal is safety. We agree on that.”

Thompson said the existing classification of coal ash as “non-hazardous” should be upheld, and that “nothing has occurred to warrant a change in that.” He agrees that companies like Duke and the EPA should look for safer and better ways to protect against contamination, but does not believe coal ash ponds should be eliminated.

“From our perspective the designation of coal ash should not change,” Thompson said. “Coal combustion byproduct right now is regulated as a non-hazardous material. We believe when you compare the makeup of coal ash and its composition to the makeup of other non-hazardous materials, they’re very similar.”

Merryman disagrees. His group favors the hazardous listing and the elimination of ash basins, which he says create a risk to water supplies.

“Our Catawba River – our drinking water supply – deserves absolute assurances that the four coal ash ponds along its banks will be cleaned-out, lined, monitored and closed for usage as soon as possible,” Merryman said. “(The hazardous listing option) provides those assurances.”

One point made clear by the EPA is that “beneficial uses” of the residue will continue to be explored. Currently coal ash byproducts can be used in gypsum, wallboard, concrete, cement and other materials.

“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,” said Mathy Stanislaus, assistant administrator for the EPA Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response. “This proposal will clearly differentiate these uses from coal ash disposal and assure that safe beneficial uses are not restricted and in fact are encouraged.”

One point agreed on by environmentalists and coal plant power producers is the 90-day comment period and accompanying rule can bring attention, and hopefully safer methods, to coal ash disposal.

“The four coal ash ponds along the Catawba River have long been under the radar,” Merryman said. “These proposed rules are a first step toward helping protect our drinking water supply.”