Coal ash is the waste created when coal is burned for energy or other uses in coal-fired plants. There are three main types, and these include fly ash, which is light and powder-like; bottom ash, which is coarser and more like sand; and boiler slag, which is also coarse and granular. ("What is Coal Ash?") Once this ash has been created by a plant, it can either be stored in a landfill or a surface impoundment, also known as a storage lagoon or retention pond. (Clayton) The amount of waste created by coal-fired plants has grown as a result of increased energy demands and more stringent emissions standards: in order to comply with stricter emissions regulations, plants have taken the fly ash that used to be released into the air and they now mix it with water to be placed in storage lagoons. (Cappiello) These ponds can While the storage sites for coal ash are hazardous and unstable, the real danger lies within the ash itself. According to Mara Hvistendahl in an article for Scientific American, the radioactive trace elements of thorium and uranium present in unburned coal are concentrated up to ten times in the fly ash that results after burning. She quotes a study done in 1978, which concluded that people who were living near coal plants ingested radiation at levels higher or equal to those who lived near nuclear plants. In addition, this study found that fly ash "carries into the surrounding environment 100 times more radiation than a nuclear power plant producing the same amount of energy." (1) Shaila Dewan states that coal ash also contains toxic heavy metals, including arsenic, lead, mercury, and selenium; the EPA has determined these material to be hazardous to "human health and water supplies." ("Hundreds Lack Regulation")
Ironically, however, the EPA decided in both 1988 and 1993 that coal ash was not a hazardous waste and therefore no federal regulations or guidelines apply to its disposal. (Cappiello) This lack of oversight has led to poorly managed and environmentally unsound storage practices; most storage ponds and landfills are unlined or inadequately lined with clay, which allows the toxic waste to leach into the groundwater and poison the surrounding environment. Earthjustice, an organization of lawyers committed to environmental preservation, cites a recent EPA report that discovered that "unlined coal ash waste ponds pose a cancer risk 900 times above what is defined as 'acceptable'." These coal ash lagoons are usually held up by compacted coal ash, which is less stable than earth and reacts poorly with water; it seems like a recipe for disaster to shore up millions of gallons of toxic, wet material with a similarly toxic material that is degraded by water. Among 155 landfill and surface impoundment sites examined by the EPA in 2006, 142 had no liner or a clay one, and 2/3 of the 155 were located near "key waterways." (Clayton)
It is clear that something needs to be done to remedy this situation. First of all, the EPA needs to reclassify coal-ash as a hazardous waste material; the concentrations of toxic heavy metals and radiation contained in the ash are reason enough to take this step. Once coal ash is established as a hazardous waste, federal regulations can then be put in place to better monitor the disposal of this material. Retention ponds must be phased out, as it they are the most unstable and dangerous form of storage- their need for water necessitates their placement near waterways and if they break they are poised to do the most damage as they flow into rivers and tributaries. Dry dumps are safer only if lined with an impermeable barrier, for example plastic as opposed to clay. Switching most of the storage to lined dry dumps will reduce the dangers of lagoon spills and groundwater contamination for the time being, but ultimately the debate comes down to coal power itself and the need for alternate sources of energy. While transferring the coal ash to landfills is an expensive option, according to Mark Clayton, the cleanup of the TVA spill will cost ten times what it would have cost to put the waste in a landfill. Ohio is the number one state with coal ash disposal sites, at 48: 26 lagoons and 22 landfills. (Clayton) The next time one breaks it could very well be a little closer to home.
Sources:
Cappiello, Dina. “Coal Ash Piling Up Most in Indiana, Ohio, Kentucky, Georgia and Alabama.” The Huffington Post.com. 9 January 2009. 29 January 2009. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/01/09/coal-ash-piling-up-most-i_n_156505.html
Clayton, Mark. “Coal-Ash Danger Rises.” Christian Science Monitor. 14 January 2009: 16.
“Coal Ash Pollution Contaminates Groundwater, Increases Cancer Risks.” Earthjustice.com. 4 September 2007. 29 January 2009. http://www.earthjustice.org/news/press/007/coal-ash-pollution-contaminates-groundwater-increases-cancer-risks.html
Dewan, Shaila. “Hundreds of Coal Ash Dumps Lack Regulation.” New York Times.com. 6 january 2009. 29 January 2009. http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/07/us/07sludge.html?_r=2
Hvistendahl, Mara. “Coal Ash is More Radioactive than Nuclear Waste.” Scientific American. 13 December 2007. 27 January 2009. http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=coal-ash-is-more-radioactive-than-nuclear-waste&page=2
“Martin County Sludge Spill.” Wikipedia: The Free Encyclopedia. 17 January 2008. 27 January 2009.
Simone, Samira J. “Tennessee sludge spill runs over homes, water.” CNN.com. 24 December 2009. 29 January 2009. http://www.cnn.com/2008/US/12/23/tennessee.sludge.spill/?iref=mpstoryview
“What is Coal Ash?” University of North Dakota Coal Ash Research Center. 27 January 2009. http://www.undeerc.org/carrc/html/whatiscoalash.html
hey- here's a really great resource on the recent sludge spill. (i didn't read this yet... so this isn't meant as a 'you need more info' just an fyi since i already have access to this resource)
ReplyDeletehttp://energyjustice.net/Ohio/TVA-Special-1-8-09.pdf
Carly,
ReplyDeleteGood start on this issue. Your draft is fairly informative about the problem and makes a couple of reasonable proposals.
Some more information about the recent huge spill would help to establish the severity of the problem. You claim that the spills are deadly, but you need some data to back that up, specific harms rather than hypothetical ones, if possible.
The proposal part could use some bolstering. For one thing, you need to consider cleanup of current sites, the expense of that, and how to assay hazards to determine what gets priority. In other words, your proposals would appear to affect future construction. If you mean it to mandate transformation of all such sites, then you need to argue for that.
You might add a few more anti-coal points to support your proposal that we stop using coal asap. There is huge economic pressure to use coal. The more expensive it gets to use it (due to environmental regulation), the more money might flow to sustainable energy.
Work the paraphrases more and put more Carly into the essay. Good last line!
"These ponds can While the storage sites for coal ash are hazardous and unstable" whoops!
In text citations: period after the parenthesis
Dr R