Beasley, Allen, Crow, Methvin, Portis & Miles, P.C.

Rules regarding the storage of coal ash are expected to come from the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) before the end of the year, but how the agency plans to categorize coal ash ponds has many environmentalists seeing red. According to a General Accountability Office document listing options currently being discussed, the EPA is considering designating wet coal ash as a hazardous material, but leaving the dry coal ash, or fly ash, categorized as non-hazardous if it is stored in a dry landfill.

Several years ago coal ash from power plants was given a non-hazardous rating. Since then, technology has improved the quality of the smoke released into the air from coal-firing plants. The toxins that used to escape into the air are now kept in the ash left behind. Tests have shown that coal ash contains dangerous toxins such as arsenic, lead, chromium, manganese and barium, which have been linked to serious health conditions such as cancer, liver damage and neurological complications.

Environmentalists have tried over the years to have coal ash reclassified as a hazardous material, but little was done to push that effort until last year when a coal impoundment pond in east Tennessee breached, sending a massive wave of coal ash on to a neighboring community. The 1.1 billion gallons that spilled out toppled houses, destroyed property and contaminated the nearby Emory River. Several residents were displaced, but it is the health risk that concerns many of the people affected by the spill. Some have reported respiratory problems and heightened anxiety. Others, including a young child, have tested positive for heavy metal in their bloodstream.

Environmentalists and activists are urging the EPA to carefully consider how it will categorize both wet and dry coal ash impoundments. “Both pose a threat to human health and the environment so it doesn’t make sense to create that dichotomy (between wet and dry ash storage regulation),” said Lisa Evans, an attorney with Earthjustice, in an interview with the Tennessean.“We would not think that would be a protective scheme, with the many cases where dry disposal has caused contamination of groundwater and surface water.”

This entry was posted on Friday, November 6th, 2009 at 2:54 pm and is filed under News. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.