As the Trump administration pushes coal energy, now is a good time to report on coal ash

View of the 2008 Kingston, Tennessee, spill that prompted coal ash 
regulations. (Photo by  Brian Stansberry, Wikimedia CC)

Almost every state in the union has coal ash stored in ponds, landfills and mines that is likely leaching toxic heavy metals into groundwater and wells. Especially now that the Trump administration is busy promoting coal energy production, it's an opportune time for local reporting on the possible presence and handling of coal ash in readers' neighborhoods.

The unfortunate truth is that coal ash can be found in a lot of places. "There are some 700 to 1,425 massive dumps of coal ash," reports Joseph A. Davis for the Society of Environmental Journalists. "States and utilities are doing little or nothing to remedy the threat that it presents." 

What is coal ash? "When coal is burned, it produces several waste byproducts," Davis writes. "The fancy name for all of it is 'coal combustion residuals.' The common name is coal ash."

Where is it found? Any plant that produces electricity from coal would leave behind coal ash as a byproduct. Coal operators put coal ash in surface impoundments, also known as ponds, in on-site landfills, or some recycle it into usable materials.

Why is it a problem? Coal ash contains many toxic substances, especially heavy metals such as arsenic, chromium, lead, and lithium. "It also contains radium, which is radioactive," Davis explains. Many coal operators have left piles of coal ash to fester and poison land and water sources.

What can be done about it? Cleaning up coal ash ponds can involve draining the surface water and capping the pond or entirely removing the ash from the pond to a lined landfill or for beneficial reuse (clean closure). Earthjustice provides a good resource document here.

Story ideas:

• How many coal ash disposal areas are there in your area? Are there coal ash sites not on an official list? Why not? Are utilities acknowledging clear responsibility for existing sites?
• Have any of the coal ash sites in your area been cleaned up to a nominal safety standard? Have they been moved to a landfill? Is it lined and capped? Safe from water? Is the new disposal site safer than the old one?
• What waters are near your area’s coal ash sites? Are the sites near a river, lake or estuary? Are they above an aquifer? Is that aquifer a drinking water source? Has anyone tested for water pollution and, if so, what were the findings?
• Historically, have there been pollution incidents in your area related to coal ash sites?
• What level of responsibility are states and utilities taking for stabilization, cleanup or maintenance of coal ash sites in your area?
• What do people in your state think about using coal ash in the concrete on local roads? Is it being done? Do people know about it?

Resources:

• Environmental Protection Agency: The EPA is the primary federal agency responsible for regulating and overseeing coal ash dumps to make them safer and less polluting.
• State environmental agencies: In some cases, the EPA has already devolved coal-ash cleanup responsibilities to state environmental agencies. See a list here.
• Earthjustice: This environmental advocacy and litigation group has for years specialized in coal ash, among other issues. The best source is Lisa Evans.
• American Coal Ash Association: An industry lobby group aimed mainly at lightening the coal ash regulatory burden on utilities and promoting the reuse of coal ash — and the idea that doing so is safe.

Where will all the coal ash go? Billions of dollars are at stake as Alabama waits for the EPA to make its decision

A coal ash lagoon at one of Alabama Power's electrical
plants. (Alabama Power courtesy photo via AL.com)

Alabama's dynamic waterways support an array of animal life, including a whopping 433 bird species. The state boasts 15 rivers and ranks fifth in the country – and first among states east of the Mississippi – for biodiversity. But alongside its teeming rivers is a giant problem -- approximately 100 million tons of coal ash abandoned by utility companies in "unlined ditches along the rivers across the state," reports Dennis Pillion of AL.com. "The concerns are huge: Will coal ash continue to seep into and contaminate the groundwater? Will the holding areas one day give way and plug the river with the discarded waste of powerplants as once happened in Tennessee?"

The state is in a "showdown" with the Environmental Protection Agency over how the coal ash will be contained, removed or restored. Pillion asks: "Can Alabama leave its coal ash where the utilities dumped it? Or do they have to dig it up and haul it away to be buried in lined landfills, as is happening in many other states? Or maybe dig it out, line the ponds, and dump it all back in?"

The state's cheapest option, "cover in place," is not cheap and does not include "digging out the ash out and putting a liner underneath it," Pillion reports. "Alabama Power estimated [that] would cost $3.3 billion. . . . The estimate also does not include ash ponds managed by the Tennessee Valley Authority and PowerSouth."

"Alabama state officials, utilities, and environmental groups can only wait now as the EPA decides Alabama's fate," Pillion explains. "Utilities were once allowed to choose between covering the ash in place or moving it to a lined landfill. But they could only leave it in place if the federal rules were met. . . .The rules may vary by presidential administration." The Biden administration has a stricter interpretation of the rules and rejected Alabama's cover-in-place plans.

"At a public hearing on EPA's decision on Sept. 20, Alabama Power Vice President of Environmental Affairs Susan Comensky argued that removal of coal ash presents challenges aside from cost." Comensky said that not only would the removal take decades to complete, but "there is not enough available landfill capacity to accept the approximately 100 million cubic yards of ash in our ponds."

"Not everyone buys that argument," Pillion writes. John Kinney, a staff scientist at Black Warrior Riverkeeper, "argued that the power companies could create landfills on-site to hold the ash waste without having to truck it across the state. . . . Utilities in other states have built lined landfills on site."

Indians use federal laws and casino revenue to block developments far from reservations

“Developers are increasingly running up against newly powerful but tradition-minded American Indian leaders” in the West, such as Mike Jackson of the Quechan Indians, right, Nelson Schwartz of The New York Times reports today from the Quechan base of Yuma, Ariz. The tribe blocked creation of a gold mine and a low-level nuclear waste dump, and now is fighting construction of an oil refinery. (For a map of those sites, click here.)

Thanks to federal environmental and historic-preservation laws, Indians have impact far beyond their reservations. “In northern Arizona, Navajos, Hopis and other Indians have effectively stopped plans to expand a ski resort roughly 50 miles from the nearest reservation, after convincing a federal appellate panel in March that using wastewater to make artificial snow would desecrate peaks long held sacred,” Schwartz writes. (Photo by Jeff Topping for the Times)

In Montana, Northern Cheyenne make similar arguments “to block drilling for coal-bed methane near their reservation,” Schwartz reports. "Pumping water out of underground aquifers to extract natural gas will harm the spirits that inhabit the springs and streams where the Northern Cheyenne worship, says Gail Small, a Northern Cheyenne tribe member who heads Native Action, an environmental group she founded after graduating from law school. Adding weight to her argument is the American Indian Religious Freedom Act, ... which acknowledges the link between native American religion and land both on and off the reservation.”

“You’re seeing a real renaissance of tribes becoming aware of their cultural resources and heritage, and reclaiming that heritage even when it’s off the reservation,” University of Arizona law professor Robert Williams Jr. told the Times. He has advised tribes on the legal issues surrounding off-reservation sacred sites. Schwartz reports, “Thanks to the rise of casino gambling on Indian reservations, many tribes now have the money to challenge natural resource companies, real estate interests and other wealthy players who have long held sway in the West.” (Read more)