From: Mike Carberry Sent: Thursday, March 19, 2009 1:17 PM To: Mike Carberry Subject: [uiec] Toxic coal ash dumps face few regulations in Iowa http://iowaindependent.com/12699/toxic-coal-ash-dumps-face-few-regulations-in-iowa Toxic coal ash dumps face few regulations in Iowa Risks of the state's four unmonitored, unlined dump sites remain unknown By Jason Hancock 3/18/09 2:57 PM When a billion-gallon wave of toxic coal ash burst from a Tennessee power plant's retention pond in December, the nation's attention was drawn to the dangers of waste generated by coal-burning power plants. While a disaster of that scale is unlikely in Iowa, the Hawkeye state faces a similar threat that may be more dangerous in other ways. At four disposal sites across the state, coal ash is being stored in unmonitored and unlined containment facilities, raising concerns that dangerous materials in the ash could poison groundwater supplies, damage ecosystems and jeopardize human health. As state and federal regulators try to understand the risks, environmental groups are pointing out that Iowa's loose regulations are allowing power plant operators from several states, including Wisconsin and Indiana, to send their coal ash to Iowa for disposal in order to keep costs low. "We're actually becoming a coal ash destination," said Carrie La Seur, president and founder of the Plains Justice, a Cedar Rapids-based public interest environmental law center. The state's Department of Natural Resources has been working for more than a year on draft rules to better regulate these disposal sites. But opposition from site owners and coal-burning businesses, along with uncertainty about what regulations the federal government may eventually impose, have caused the effort to stall. The majority of coal ash in Iowa is deposited in one of a dozen sites around the state mandated to follow sanitary landfill regulations, including groundwater monitoring and protective lining to help ensure toxins don't leach into the soil. But four sites - three abandoned quarries in Cedar Rapids, Goose Lake and Waterloo and one mine in Buffalo - received waivers from the DNR allowing them to take in coal ash without following the those regulations. Sites that dispose of coal ash using this type of waiver, called beneficial use waivers, are not subject to many environmental regulations and are not required to conduct monitoring to determine whether elements from the coal ash are getting into the water supply. Each of the four sites received the waiver to use coal ash as part of an effort to reclaim or re-purpose the abandoned industrial sites. In addition to benefiting the quarry owners, these waivers provide cheap dumping sites for users, which vary from municipally-owned utilities to industrial companies like John Deere to the state's three regent universities - Iowa State, Iowa and Northern Iowa. "We assert that the beneficial use of [coal combustion by-products] as fill material, most specifically in required quarry reclamation projects, should continue for the benefit of all Iowans by reducing the cost of electrical generation and the cost of producing goods requiring electricity while returning property to a productive use," the Iowa Association of Business and Industry said in a letter to the DNR last year. Environmental groups, however, are not convinced of the benefits of these dumps. "This is happening despite the fact that most of this waste stream has very high levels of heavy metals that are known neurotoxins and known to be dangerous to human health," said La Seur. "As far as we can tell, the beneficial use is when you fill the big hole in the ground, there is no more hole." Coal ash: lead, arsenic and radioactivity Coal ash, also known as fly ash, is the waste produced by burning coal. The nation's power plants produce enough ash to fill 1 million railroad cars a year, according to a 2006 report by the National Research Council. Coal-burning power plants in Iowa produce 20,000 to 30,000 tons of coal ash every year. The coal ash contains much greater concentrations of elements such as mercury, zinc, lead, arsenic and selenium than the coal itself. The by-product is also believed to be radioactive. Exposure to these toxins can lead to cancer, birth defects and reproductive problems. Despite the well-documented dangers of coal ash, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency does not regulate its disposal, leaving each state to set its own rules. Plains Justice first brought the dangers of coal ash to the attention of state regulators in 2007. But in January the DNR announced that instead of issuing new regulations, it would conduct a three-year study to see whether the toxic ash was polluting waterways before requiring liners and monitoring at disposal sites. Industry representatives, from quarry owners to utilities, complained that there was no need for added regulations and that it would only increase the cost of disposal, which would eventually be passed on to utility rate payers. That led to a showdown with the state's Environmental Protection Commission, which criticized the delay and vowed to pursue tougher regulations. "Back in the spring of last year we began to look at making changes to make beneficial-use projects follow landfill standards," said Chad Stobbe, the DNR's lead staffer on coal ash issues. "The quarries were coming back to us saying there is no specific information that there is any contamination at these sites. So we were looking at doing a study to get site-specific data to analyze the risk." David Wilson, senior environmental engineer for Elk Run Energy Associates, the utility that recently abandoned plans for a new coal plant in Waterloo, called into question the need for new regulations. "In how many instances were water quality violations identified in Iowa?" Wilson said in a letter to the DNR. "What was the cause? What was the composition and source of the [coal combustion residue]? Certainly if [coal combustion residue] fill in quarries does adversely affect human health or the environment in Iowa, such a showing should be easily made." La Seur said there is a good reason why there is no evidence of toxins leaching into groundwater supplies in Iowa. "The sites don't have monitoring wells," she said. "We would have no way of knowing if there is already contamination." Stobbe at the DNR acknowledged that, because there is no data available, he can't say for sure there isn't already a problem. "Nothing has been measured, so without that I couldn't say yeah or nay. Possibly." In its 2007 report, Plains Justice showed that there is evidence that even at properly lined dump sites there is an increasing level of contaminants escaping, making the likelihood that leaching is taking place in unlined sites even larger. Henry Marquard, chairman of the Iowa Environmental Protection Commission, said he would prefer a voluntary monitoring program to be put in place until stricter regulations could be drafted, if they are deemed necessary. "I think we do monitoring while we're drafting rules," Marquard said. "If we do it and then discover there is not a problem, then at least we know. If we discover a problem, we can do something about it. That's where we need to start: Getting good data." The DNR staff has been instructed to continue to look into possible solutions, he added. Will taxpayers pay the tab? Despite the lack of monitoring at the four Iowa sites, there is ample evidence at similar sites in other states of the dangers posed by coal ash. Tisha Petteway, a spokeswoman for the EPA, said in May 2000 the agency specifically identified disposal in sand and gravel pits as accounting for six proven cases of environmental damage. A recent study by the Center for Public Integrity found several instances of coal ash poisoning groundwater supplies. In Pines, Ind., 163 wells were contaminated when boron, arsenic, lead and manganese leached from an unlined disposal site. In South Carolina, two leaking ponds near the Savannah River contaminated a nearby wetland. In all, in a 2007 report the EPA found that unlined coal ash waste ponds pose a cancer risk 900 times above what is defined as "acceptable." Another concern, La Seur said, was that if contamination is discovered, there are no assurances that the individuals who caused the problem will be forced to clean it up. "Normally, where there is toxic waste, there is bonding," she said. "There are financial assurances that should contamination occur, the financial resources are there to clean it up. We're hoping there is no contamination, and we're hoping if there is, the people responsible will be able to clean it up." But in many cases the companies responsible will declare bankruptcy, leaving the taxpayer to pick up the tab. Stobbe argues that while there is no monitoring in place, the sites are subject to some regulation. Disposal sites must clear certain hurdles before they can accept coal ash, he said, including tests of pre-existing levels of heavy metals in the soil. Those tests are then compared to the levels in the coal ash. "They aren't just taking ash from anywhere," he said. "That waste stream has to be pre-approved by us to be disposed of at that site. It had to meet our analysis process." Still, the process offers no guarantees that leaching isn't taking place. Supporters of tougher regulations want the DNR to designate all coal-ash sites as landfills. A landfill designation would mean sites taking coal ash would have to install at least one monitor, provide some groundwater protection in the form of liners and provide a financial guarantee of ability to close a site if contamination occurs. While the DNR has abandoned the idea of a three-year study of potential groundwater threats due to coal ash, another factor has delayed possible state action: federal involvement. The EPA has been studying the health and environmental effects of coal ash since 1980, but it wasn't until 2000 that the agency indicated it wanted to set a national standard for coal ash disposal. That idea faced strong opposition from utilities and ultimately stalled during the administration of President George W. Bush. However, in the aftermath of December's massive coal ash spill in Tennessee, the EPA has vowed to draft regulations by the end of the year. "There will be federal rules by the end of the calendar year," Stobbe of DNR said. "We could draft our own rules, but the EPA requirements could trump anything we do at the state level. So ultimately we're waiting to see what rules the EPA dictates." La Seur said the EPA's announcement, while welcome, leaves environmental groups wondering what to do as well, not knowing whether to continue to press state officials to draft new regulations or wait until the EPA unveils its plan. Next: The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency is pushing forward with rules regulating coal ash disposal. But will it result in better safety in Iowa or simply a dangerous delay in state rules? ----- Mike Carberry Green State Solutions: Director 319-594-6453 [log in to unmask] www.greenstatesolutions.com - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - To unsubscribe from the IOWA-TOPICS list, send any message to: [log in to unmask] Check out our Listserv Lists support site for more information: http://www.sierraclub.org/lists/faq.asp Sign up to receive Sierra Club Insider, the flagship e-newsletter. Sent out twice a month, it features the Club's latest news and activities. Subscribe and view recent editions at http://www.sierraclub.org/insider/