Here’s the latest, just announced by Earthjustice:

Environmental and public health groups announced their intent to sue the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency in federal court to force the release of long awaited public health safeguards against toxic coal ash. The EPA has delayed the first-ever federal protections for coal ash for nearly two years despite more evidence of leaking ponds, poisoned groundwater supplies and threats to public health.

Earthjustice, on behalf of Appalachian Voices (NC), Chesapeake Climate Action Network (MD), Environmental Integrity Project, French Broad Riverkeeper (NC), Kentuckians For The Commonwealth (KY), Moapa band of Paiutes (NV), Montana Environmental Information Center (MT), Physicians for Social Responsibility, Prairie Rivers Network (IL), Sierra Club and Southern Alliance for Clean Energy (TN), sent the EPA a notice of intent to sue the agency under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA). The law requires the EPA to ensure that safeguards are regularly updated to address threats posed by wastes. However, the EPA has never undertaken any action to ensure safeguards address the known threats posed by coal ash, a toxic mix of arsenic, lead, hexavalent chromium, mercury, selenium, cadmium and other dangerous pollutants that result from burning coal at coal-fired power plants.

The notice of intent to sue is available online here.   Earthjustice said in its press release:

Following a spill of more than a billion gallons of coal ash at a disposal pond in Harriman, TN, in December 2008, EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson announced in 2009 plans to set federal coal ash regulations by year’s end. In May 2010, the EPA proposed a hybrid regulation to classify coal ash either as hazardous or non-hazardous waste. After eight public hearings across the country and more than 450,000 public comments, the agency decided to delay finalizing the rule amid intense pressure from the coal and power industries.

Despite numerous studies showing the inadequacy of current federal coal ash safeguards to protect public health and the environment as well as documented evidence by the EPA and environmental groups showing coal ash poisoned aquifers and surface waters at 150 sites in 36 states, the EPA continues to fail to adopt federal safeguards. Today’s lawsuit would force the EPA to set deadlines for review and revision of relevant solid and hazardous waste regulations to address coal ash, as well as the much needed and overdue changes to the test that determines whether a waste is hazardous under RCRA.

Earthjustice coal ash expert Lisa Evans said:

Politics and pressure from corporate lobbyists are delaying much needed health protections from coal ash. The law states that the EPA should protect citizens who are exposed to cancer-causing chemicals in their drinking water from coal ash. As we clean up the smokestacks of power plants, we can’t just shift the pollution from air to water and think the problem is solved. The EPA must set strong, federally enforceable safeguards against this toxic menace.

This frame grab provided by TMJ4 Television shows part of a bluff that collapsed at We Energies power plant along the Lake Michigan shoreline Monday, Oct. 31, 2011, in Oak Creek, Wis. (AP Photo/courtesy TMJ4-TV)

The word out of Wisconsin today from the Milwaukee paper is this:

Water takes the easy way, the path of least resistance, as it flows over the surface or underground.

Water was doing just that when it became a player in Monday’s dramatic bluff collapse at We Energies’ Oak Creek Power Plant on the Lake Michigan shoreline, a geologist said.

The easiest path available to water seeping out of the bottom of a hilltop unlined storm water retention basin at the property was the adjacent coal-ash filled ravine, said Doug Cherkauer, emeritus geosciences professor at the University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee. Ash is less compact and less stable than the clay rich glacial soils in the rest of the hill or the bottom of the ravine, he said.

Monday’s dramatic bluff collapse at the property likely will be linked to water gradually saturating ash at the bottom of the old ravine, essentially lubricating the area between the ash and the clay-rich till at the bottom of the ravine, Cherkauer said Wednesday.

Saturated ash would have started oozing out of the bottom of the old ravine causing the top of the bluff to collapse and fall down the hill, Cherkauer said.

The paper also reported:

In anticipation of the steady rains hitting the area Wednesday, contractors built a gravel berm west and uphill of the bluff collapse.

The berm will divert storm water flowing down the hill from the landslide and prevent more ash and mud from being pushed into the lake. Storm water held back by the berm would be pumped to a retention pond south of the collapsed bluff, We Energies spokesman Brian Manthey said.

Representatives of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and DNR collected lake water samples Wednesday. Samples will be tested for heavy metals and suspended solids, such as coal ash, an EPA spokeswoman said.

Understandably, the coal-ash landslide in Wisconsin has prompted renewed discussion of what the nation should do about closing the large loopholes that leave coal-ash handling and disposal mostly unregulated (see also here and here).  Coal Tattoo posts earlier this week (see here and here) have generated some discussion, and some criticism from at least one reader, going by the handle “Inspector”, who says House-passed legislation authored by Rep. David McKinley, R-W.Va. (and co-sponsored by Reps Nick J. Rahall and Shelley Moore Capito) is the right path to take:

So, yes, we DO need additional controls, and, yes, EPA is being given more authority than they currently have under Subtitle D under H.R. 2273. And, yes, all of those controls would give states and EPA the abililty to ensure that CCRs are being managed properly. Here again, there isn’t disagreement on this other than with those who want to see CCR regulated as a Subtitle C waste in order to make the use of coal much more difficult and costly, not to add further actual protections to human health and the environment (as a reminder, the technical specs that actually provide the protections are the same under all of the proposals).

So, I thought we should spend a little time today looking at what McKinley says in support of his bill, and also at some of the criticisms that have been raised. First, Rep. McKinley. Upon House passage of his bill a couple weeks ago, McKinley issued a statement saying:

Every day coal ash is produced in nearly 700 coal-fired generating plants in 48 of the 50 states in America. Approximately 140 million tons are produced annually with 40% of that coal ash being beneficially recycled. Over the years, scientists and entrepreneurs have found uses for coal ash through a variety of recycling options. Businesses were emboldened to recycle the material after two studies by the EPA in 1993 and in 2000 found that coal ash is not a hazardous material and could be used by the public. The findings of these two studies specifically state that there have been no documented cases of coal ash damaging human health or the environment. As a result industries have sprung up all across America and thousands of jobs have been created by recycling coal ash.

After 30 years we finally resolved the issue today. H.R. 2273 is strongly endorsed by state environmental officials, including the Environmental Council of the States and the Association of State and Solid Waste Officials as well as various labor unions. I am pleased to see so many of my colleagues support this bipartisan, pro-jobs legislation.

This is a jobs bill and a public health bill; protecting the livelihoods and the health of our working men and women are not mutually exclusive ideas.

Sounds pretty good, right? Rep. McKinley’s press office was even kind enough to quote me in this release:

A jobs bill (H.R. 2273) authored by Rep. David B. McKinley, P.E. (R-WV), which for the first time sets minimum federal guidelines regulating coal ash while empowering the states to enforce them, passed the House Friday with overwhelming bipartisan support. McKinley’s legislation, which a Veritas study found could protect up to 316,000 jobs from being eliminated, was approved 267-144, with 37 Democrats voting yes. The Charleston Gazette’s Ken Ward Jr. today noted that the question of how to regulate coal ash has been “a long simmering issue ignored by many policymakers” – until now.

(more…)

This frame grab provided by TMJ4 Television shows part of a bluff that collapsed at We Energies power plant along the Lake Michigan shoreline Monday, Oct. 31, 2011, in Oak Creek, Wis. (AP Photo/courtesy TMJ4-TV)

Let’s start this morning by remembering the standard line from opponents of strong EPA regulation of toxic coal ash: States can handle this. And then, let’s take a look at the report out this morning from the folks at the Milwaukee Journal-Sentinal:

State environment regulators gave We Energies a pass in 2008 – exempting it from certain rules so that construction work could be done atop coal ash landfills on a bluff on the Lake Michigan shoreline at the utility’s Oak Creek Power Plant, officials said Tuesday.

Department of Natural Resources officials determined in 2008 that construction activities on an ash-filled ravine and other small landfills south of the utility’s two plants on the property would not increase the risk of the ash or other contaminants getting into the lake, said Frank Schultz, the department’s waste supervisor in Milwaukee. We Energies is building an air quality control facility for the older power plant at the site.

State environmental and utility regulators at the time decided that the construction activity would not significantly damage the environment, so no impact studies were needed.

Work progressed until Monday, when a wide section of the bluff, including part of an ash-filled ravine, collapsed, sending a destructive cascade of mud down the slope and into the lake. No one is certain of the extent of the environmental damage, DNR officials said.

It wasn’t so long ago that Earthjustice and Appalachian Mountain Advocates warned of the dangers of letting states handle this important job:

Our review reveals that most states do not require all coal ash landfills and ponds to employ the most basic safeguards required at household trash landfills, such as composite liners, groundwater monitoring, leachate collection systems, dust controls and financial assurance; nor do states require that coal ash ponds be operated to avoid catastrophic collapse. In addition, most states allow the placement of toxic coal ash in water tables and the siting of ponds and landfills in wetlands, unstable areas and floodplains. When measured against basic safeguards that the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) identified as essential to protect health and the environment,1 state regulatory programs fail miserably to guarantee safety from contamination and catastrophe.

(more…)

The site of a bluff collapse at the We Energies Oak Creek Power Plant in Oak Creek, Wis. is shown Monday, Oct. 31, 2011. A section of cliff the size of a football field gave way Monday at the southeastern Wisconsin power plant, creating a mudslide that sent a pickup truck and other equipment tumbling into Lake Michigan and swept several construction trailers toward the beach. (AP Photo/Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel, Mark Hoffman)

The latest news out of Wisconsin, via the Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel, is this:

A contractor for We Energies will begin skimming fuel and floating debris either later today or early Wednesday off the surface of Lake Michigan near the site of Monday’s mudslide at the Oak Creek Power Plant.

A boom in the lake forms a semicircle 1,500 feet long and extends about 100 feet from the shoreline, forming the area that will be skimmed first, We Energies spokesman Brian Manthey said at a Tuesday afternoon news conference.

A second, longer boom will be placed further out in the lake Wednesday to contain fuel and debris that might have been carried farther into the lake.

The contractor beginning Wednesday or later in the week will go onto the water south of the plant to look for debris that may have floated toward Racine County, Manthey said.

A separate contractor was to begin building a dirt berm on top of the hill where the mudslide began to prevent rain from washing additional debris down the slope and into the lake, Manthey said. Rain is forecast Wednesday and Thursday.

So far, details to give us a better idea of the size, scope and consequences of the coal-ash spill have yet to emerge. The Associated Press reported this afternoon:

A We Energies spokeswoman says the debris that washed into Lake Michigan this week during a sudden landslide likely contains toxic coal ash … No one was hurt, but a swath of debris the size of a football field swept toward and into the water. Spokeswoman Cathy Schulze says records of land use in the area suggest there was decades-old coal ash around. She said Tuesday she didn’t immediately have further details on how much coal ash may have spilled.

Despite the lack of details, the Sierra Club was out there before 9 a.m. today with a press release, in which Mary Anne Hitt, director of the group’s Beyond Coal Campaign, called the incident a disaster — not once, but five times:

The EPA has been trying to enact new protections to stop this kind of disaster from happening again, ever since the TVA disaster in 2008, and our do-nothing Congress has been blocking them every step of the way … This disaster in the Great Lakes is a tragic reminder of why the status quo is not good enough. As long as Congress interferes, disasters like this are going to happen, and dozens of communities are at risk … This disaster shows that states are not protecting our health and our environment from cancer-causing coal ash, and as long as the EPA fails to act there will be more coal ash disasters … This disaster is particularly troublesome because We Energies has known for years that its management of coal ash at this facility was a threat to human health.

For those who haven’t heard, the Milwaukee paper’s initial news story is the best discussion I’ve seen so far of what happened:

A large section of bluff collapsed Monday next to the We Energies Oak Creek Power Plant, sending dirt, coal ash and mud cascading into the shoreline next to Lake Michigan and dumping a pickup truck, dredging equipment, soil and other debris into the lake.

There were no injuries, and the incident did not affect power output from the plant.

When the section of bluff collapsed and slid from a terraced area at the top of a hill down to the lake, Oak Creek Acting Fire Chief Tom Rosandich said, it left behind a debris field that stretched 120 yards long and 50 to 80 yards wide at the bottom.

Aerial images show a trailer and storage units holding construction equipment tumbled like Tonka toy trucks and were swept along with the falling bluff in a river of dirt that ended in the water.

(more…)

Here’s the latest on coal-ash ponds from Earthjustice:

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s latest release of data concerning coal ash ponds reveals a threefold increase in the number of significant-hazard rated coal ash ponds. This nightmare scenario comes as legislation passed by the House of Representatives and introduced in the Senate proposes to completely castrate the EPA’s ability to set federally enforceable safeguards for proper coal ash disposal.

“Coal ash ponds are threatening hundreds of communities and their drinking water supplies, but the current approach in Congress is to ignore the problem and hope it goes away,” said Earthjustice attorney Lisa Evans.

The EPA is rating coal ash ponds according to a National Inventory of Dams (NID) criteria that categorizes the ponds by the damage that would occur if the pond collapses. Coal ash ponds are usually earthen structures holding back millions of tons of toxic coal ash and water. This month, the EPA recently released a new set of data that reveals 181 “significant” hazard dams in 18 states. This is more than three times the 60 significant-hazard ponds listed in the original database released in 2009. In addition to the increase in the number of significant hazard-rated ponds, eight of the previously unrated coal ash ponds were found to be high hazard ponds in information released by the EPA earlier this year. Because of the switch in ratings after the EPA inspections, the total number of high hazard ponds has stayed roughly the same at a total of 47 ponds nationwide.

(more…)

Earlier today, the Obama White House signaled its strong opposition to legislation from Rep. David McKinley, R-W.Va. (see here, here and here), to block any tough U.S. Environmental Protection Agency regulation of the handling and disposal of toxic coal ash.

As reported by The Hill, the White House said:

The Administration opposes H.R. 2273, as reported by Committee, which is insufficient to address the risks associated with coal ash disposal and management, and undermines the Federal government’s ability to ensure that requirements for management and disposal of coal combustion residuals are protective of human health and the environment.

The 2008 failure of a coal ash impoundment in Kingston, Tennessee, which spilled more than five million cubic yards of coal ash and will require approximately $1.2 billion for clean-up, is a stark reminder of the need for safe disposal and management of coal ash to protect public health and the environment. The Administration has assessed structural stability at active coal ash impoundments and has identified 49 units in 12 states as having a “high hazard potential” rating should they fail.

The Administration supports the development, implementation, and enforcement of appropriate standards for facilities managing coal ash, while encouraging the beneficial use of this economically important material. Any approach to managing coal ash would need to include: (1) clear requirements that address the risks associated with the coal ash disposal and management; (2) consideration of the best science and data available; (3) adequate evaluation of structural integrity; (4) protective solutions for existing as well as new facilities; and (5) appropriate public information and comment.

Because H.R. 2273 is deficient in these areas and would replace existing authorities with inadequate and inappropriate minimum requirements, the Administration opposes the bill.

Of course, that statement — strictly speaking — doesn’t threaten to veto the bill, and EPA Administrator Lisa P. Jackson has done well enough on her own delaying any meaningful federal regulation of toxic coal ash (see here and here (subscription required)).

While federal regulation of toxic coal-ash handling and disposal seems stalled at the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency — and faces efforts for a congressional block by West Virginia Rep. David McKinley — the safety and environmental integrity of coal-ash impoundments around the country rests firmly with state regulators.

But how firm are the rules those state regulators use? Not very, at least according to a new report issued this morning by Earthjustice and Appalachian Mountain Advocates:

Our review reveals that most states do not require all coal ash landfills and ponds to employ the most basic safeguards required at household trash landfills, such as composite liners, groundwater monitoring, leachate collection systems, dust controls and financial assurance; nor do states require that coal ash ponds be operated to avoid catastrophic collapse. In addition, most states allow the placement of toxic coal ash in water tables and the siting of ponds and landfills in wetlands, unstable areas and floodplains. When measured against basic safeguards that the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) identified as essential to protect health and the environment,1 state regulatory programs fail miserably to guarantee safety from contamination and catastrophe.

Earthjustice and Appalachian Mountain Advocates continued:

There are currently over 700 coal ash dams, many of which operate without adequate lining and no water quality monitoring, and have been operating in some instances for decades. Most states do not require coal ash ponds and dumps to employ the most basic safeguards required at landfills for household garbage. Of the 37 states examined:

– Only 3 states require composite liners for all new coal ash ponds;

– Only 4 5 states require composite liners for all new coal ash landfills;

– Only 2 states require groundwater monitoring of all coal ash ponds;

– Only 4 states require groundwater monitoring of all coal ash landfills;

– Only 6 states prohibit siting of coal ash ponds into the water table;

–Only 17 states require regulatory inspections of the structural integrity of coal ash ponds.

Lisa Evans of Earthjustice said:

This report proves unequivocally that state programs, without federal mandates or oversight, are a recipe for disaster when it comes to protecting our health and our environment. Strong, federally enforceable safeguards are needed to guarantee that our drinking water remains free of arsenic, lead, mercury and other toxic metals found in coal ash. The myth that states are doing a good job protecting Americans from coal ash is absolutely busted.

And Mike Becher of Appalachian Mountain Advocates said:

The problem with relying on state regulations is that they are not designed for the unique problems of coal ash generally and coal ash impoundments particularly. While many coal ash impoundments are regulated by state dam safety programs, these programs were developed to deal with dams holding back water, not toxic substances. State solid waste programs, on the other hand, are not used to dealing with large impoundments and the threat of a catastrophic dam failure like the one seen in Kingston, Tennessee in 2008.

A new report out this morning ties toxic coal ash to pollution of water supplies with the cancer-causing chemical hexavalent chromium.

Here’s the announcement:

Just weeks after recent headlines about hexavalent chromium, a cancer-causing toxic chemical, contaminated drinking water systems around the U.S., a new report shows that scores of leaking coal ash sites across the country are additional documented sites for such contamination.

Hexavalent chromium first made headlines after Erin Brockovich sued Pacific Gas & Electric because of poisoned drinking water from hexavalent chromium. Now new information indicates that the chemical leaks readily from leaking coal ash dump sites maintained for coal-fired power plants.

Public interest law firm Earthjustice, Physicians for Social Responsibility and Environmental Integrity Project are pushing for federally-enforceable safeguards from coal ash as this new information is released. Also, in a signal that the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee recognizes the hazards of hexavalent chromium exposure, they have called on U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Lisa Jackson to testify tomorrow on a hearing about the chemical.

I’ve posted a copy of the report here.

Lisa Evans, senior administrative counsel at Earthjustice, said this morning:

Communities near coal ash sites must add hexavalent chromium to the list of toxic chemicals that threaten their health and families. It is now abundantly clear that the EPA must control coal ash disposal to prevent the poisoning of our drinking water with hexavalent chromium.

(more…)

Hey folks, Coal Tattoo is back up and running for a couple of days before the New Year’s holiday. We’ve got lots to catch up on, but first, we do have this bit of breaking news this morning from the folks at the Environmental Integrity Project:

Two years after the Kingston, TN coal ash spill, federal action to regulate coal ash dumps is being held up by concerns that stricter standards would depress markets for coal-ash recycling. “Cost-benefit” analysis estimates prepared by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) claim that coal ash recycling is worth more than $23 billion a year, based on the annual life-cycle benefits of avoiding pollution and reducing energy costs. But there’s just one problem: That estimate is more than 20 times higher than the $1.15 billion that the U.S. government’s own data shows is the correct bottom-line number, according to a review conducted by the independent and nonprofit Environmental Integrity Project (EIP), Earthjustice, and the Stockholm Environment Institute’s U.S. Center (based at Tufts University).

You can read a copy of the report here, and a more detailed analysis, submitted to EPA, here.

Environmental Integrity Project Director Eric Schaeffer said:

Unfortunately, EPA and OMB just got this wrong. The ‘regulatory impact analysis’ prepared by EPA to support its proposal exaggerates the economic life cycle value of coal ash recycling, which could end up stacking the deck in favor of the weaker regulatory option favored by industry. Somehow, the agency has let itself be distracted by bogus economic arguments, instead of determining how best to protect the public from leaking ash dumps. In any case, coal ash recycling would not stop under the stronger of the two rules at the EPA. Coal combustion waste can be recycled responsibly, help reduce disposal costs and, in some cases, reduce energy or raw materials cost when coal ash is used as a substitute. All evidence suggests that strict regulation of coal ash disposal sites will encourage recycling, as industries seek to avoid the higher disposal costs.

Some coalfield politicians, including West Virginia Gov. Joe Manchin, are quick to point to supposed “beneficial uses” of toxic coal ash, when they attack federal government efforts to more closely regulate coal-fired power plant waste.

We’ve written before regarding questions about the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s promotion of “beneficial uses” and the close ties between those EPA efforts and industry lobby groups (see posts here and here).

Now this week, a report from the EPA’s own Inspector General has some criticism of the agency’s actions regarding a Web site promoting “beneficial uses”:

EPA’s C2P2 Website presented an incomplete picture regarding actual damage and potential risks that can result from large-scale placement of CCRs. In its May 2010 proposed rule, EPA showed that environmental risks and damage can be associated with the large-scale placement of unencapsulated CCRs. According to EPA’s proposed rule, unencapsulated use of CCRs may result in environmental contamination, such as leaching of heavy metals into drinking water sources. The proposed rule identified seven cases involving large-scale placement, under the guise of beneficial use, of unencapsulated CCRs, in which damage to human health or the environment had been demonstrated. EPA states in its proposed rule that it does not consider large-scale placement of CCRs as representing beneficial use. However, EPA’s C2P2 Website, which contained general risk information, did not disclose this EPA decision and did not make the seven damage cases readily accessible.

The C2P2 Website also contained material that gave the appearance that EPA endorses commercial products. Such an endorsement is prohibited by EPA ethics policies and communications guidelines. We identified 9 of 23 case studies on the Website that reference commercial products made with CCRs or patented business technologies. All 23 of the studies were marked with EPA’s official logo but none had the required disclaimer stating that EPA does not endorse the commercial products.

Although EPA has suspended active participation in C2P2 during the rulemaking process, the C2P2 Website remained available for public searches, information, and education. The C2P2 Website contained incomplete risk information on the beneficial use of CCRs. The C2P2 Website also contained apparent or implied EPA endorsements that are prohibited by EPA policies.

As the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency continues its series of public hearings on proposed regulation of the handling and disposal of toxic coal ash, the group Physicians for Social Responsibility is releasing a new report on the subject. Its conclusion, according to Barbara Gottlieb, PSR’s deputy director for environment and health:

Sunday’s New York Times included an editorial that called on the Obama administration to take the tougher approach to regulation of toxic coal ash:

One proposal, favored by public-interest groups and by agency scientists, would replace a patchwork of uneven — and in many cases weak — state regulations with new national standards. It would formally designate coal ash as a hazardous waste under federal law, require industry to phase out porous sludge ponds, replace them with sturdy, leak-proof facilities, and take other protective steps.

The competing proposal would establish federal guidelines for disposal but leave enforcement to the states. It would also preserve coal ash’s status as a nonhazardous substance. Though the proposal barely improves on the status quo, the Office of Management and Budget — after heavy lobbying by the coal industry — agreed to give it equal billing in the public hearings.

The tougher proposal is obviously better. Coal ash, the byproduct of coal combustion, is a huge problem. Its toxins — which can include arsenic, lead and other heavy metals — can poison local water supplies. America’s power plants produce 130 million tons of the stuff every year, enough to fill a train of boxcars stretching from the District of Columbia to Australia.

The Obama administration this week kicks off its series of seven public hearing on the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s proposed rules to govern the handling and disposal of toxic coal ash from the nation’s power plants.

The Knoxville News Sentinel covered the first of the hearings, held yesterday in Arlington, Va., and reported:

Environmental activists urged the federal government Monday to regulate toxic ash from coal-fired power plants as hazardous waste, arguing that federal standards are necessary because the states have done a poor job of regulating coal-ash disposal.

‘The threat that coal ash poses to human health is serious, and it is widespread,’ said Barbara Gottlieb of Physicians for Social Responsibility, a nonprofit advocacy group that works to protect the public from environmental toxins.

But road builders and other industries that use recycled coal ash in concrete, cement and other construction materials argued that labeling coal ash as a hazardous substance would devastate the recycling business. Furthermore, they said, there is no scientific proof that coal ash is a danger to public health.

‘We hope you will rule on science, not science fiction or political science,’ said Thomas Adams of the American Coal Ash Association.

Time and again, the starkly contrasting views about the dangers and benefits of coal ash played out like a point/counterpoint debate during the opening hearing on the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s proposal to set federal standards for coal ash disposal.

(more…)

As the Obama administration prepared to begin the public hearings on its proposed regulation of the handling and disposal of toxic coal ash, environmental groups today are releasing a new report that documents more water contamination from ash dumps across the country.

The report, by the Environmental Integrity Project, Earthjustice and the Sierra Club, documents 39 additional coal-ash dump sites in 21 states that are contaminating drinking water or surface water with arsenic and other heavy metals.

Experts from those groups found that, at every one of the coal-ash dump sites equipped with groundwater monitoring wells, concentrations of heavy metals such as arsenic or lead exceeded federal health-based standards for drinking water, with concentrations at the Hatfield’s Ferry site in Pennsylvania reaching as high as 341 times the federal standard for arsenic.

This new report comes after a February 2010 report by Environmental Integrity and Earthjustice that documented water contamination from 31 coal-ash dump sites in 14 state. See New report: More water poisoned by coal ash. It also adds to the nearly 70 other sites previously identified by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.

Lisa Evans, senior administrative counsel at Earthjustice, said:

There is no greater reason for coal ash regulation than preventing the poisoning of our water. We now have 39 more good reasons for a national coal ash rule. the mountaing number of contaminated sites demonstrates that the states are unable or unwilling to solve this problem.

Environmental groups want to see the Obama EPA take a more aggressive stance, and choose to more closely regulate coal ash as a hazardous waste (for more discussion of the alternatives being considered by EPA see Obama EPA punts on coal ash regulations.

Jeff Stant, director of the Environmental Integrity Project’s Coal Combustion Waste Initiative, said:

The contamination of water supplies, threats to people, and damage to the environment documented in this report illustrate very real and dangerous harms that are prohibited by federal law but are going on in a largely unchecked fashion at today’s coal ash dump sites. Contamination of the environment and water supplies with toxic levels of arsenic, lead and other chemicals is a pervasive reality at America’s coal ash disposal sites because states are not preventing it. The case for a national regulation setting common sense safeguards for states to meet, such as liners, monitoring and cleanup standards, could not be more persuasive. The need for more direct EPA involvement is clear; leaving enforcement to the same states that have refused to do their jobs for the last 40 years is simply not a responsible course of action.

(more…)