New Research Finds Toxic Risks For Some Coal Waste Disposal In W.Va.

Two of coal’s pollution legacies are acid mine drainage, the waste from mining coal, and fly ash, waste from burning coal. For years, some energy companies have put the waste into wet or dry storage impoundments.

Two of coal’s pollution legacies are acid mine drainage, the waste from mining coal, and fly ash, waste from burning coal. For years, some energy companies have put the waste into wet or dry storage impoundments.

Research has proved that combining fly ash with acid mine drainage can neutralize the acid. But a new study called, “Water quality implications of the neutralization of acid mine drainage with coal fly ash from India and the United States” found that the combination can be toxic, and include things like arsenic, lead and more.

A few years ago companies began using it in abandoned coal mines to neutralize some of the acid drainage.

In fact, putting fly ash into former mine sites is done in West Virginia. The study found that the combination can cause contamination harmful to human health.

“We realized that the properties of coal ash allows it to neutralize very acidic fluids like acid mine drainage,” AvnerVengosh, Professor of Environmental Quality at Duke University said.

The article was published in Fuel, an open-access, peer-reviewed research journal about fuel science.

Vengosh is one of the authors.

“Some fly ash has a very successful ability to neutralize acid mine drainage,” Vangosh said. “For example, [fly ash] in India, because of the chemistry of the original coal, they have less capacity to neutralize acid mine drainage. But coming back to the U.S., we found that the Appalachian fly ash, fly ash that we use so commonly in West Virginia, has pretty good capability of neutralization. However, because of the chemistry of the fly ash, and because it contains high concentrations of contaminants like arsenic, selenium, molybdenum, some elements that we know could hurt human health and the environment.

“When we [observed] the interaction of acid mine drainage with the fly ash, we actually found a negative impact on the treated effluent. So it’s like, pick your poison. On one hand, we are reducing the acidity of the acid mine drainage and it becoming no acid anymore, and therefore it’s very beneficial. However, on the other hand, we are generating what we call secondary contamination. So the fly ash would contribute contaminants into those effluent.”

Even though contaminants like arsenic occur naturally in the environment, it’s still dangerous to human health.

“Even a small amount of arsenic could be devastating for your health. So the fact that it’s coming from naturally occurring has nothing to do with its toxicity and its impact on human health,” Vengosh said. “This is really important. The quality of the water in West Virginia is one of the best I’ve ever measured in my life. Because of the spring and the water, the surface water is really clean. However, once you start to have mining, mountaintop mining, and or acid mine drainage, this high quality of water deteriorates very quickly.

“Water is becoming a major issue and one of the consequences of climate change. And global warming that we are seeing is that water in some areas is becoming more scarce. And we’re talking about water, the amount of water, but the quality in many parts of the world are being degraded because of climate change as well. So preserving clean water is really essential for our next generation to come.”

Vengosh said he’s not an activist, but he hopes to see new policies that protect public health based on this research.

“I think, is awareness that, regardless of your political belief, regardless where you come from, you have to understand the fact that coal ash is, and coal mining in general, presents challenges to our environment and to human health.

“I hope that there will be some kind of political consequences that people would say, ‘stop hurting, stop polluting our water,’ and that we are not putting ourselves in danger.”

Vangosh also wants to take this research on location in the “real world” and question the benefits of such disposal.

“I would expect the West Virginia authorities [WVDEP] would jump into that and test all the water that’s coming from those abandoned coal mines,” Vengosh said, “and to determine what are the actual risks on the ground for people who live there.”

Federal court orders EPA-revised coal ash regulations

The Environmental Protection Agency will soon be expected to move forward revising coal ash regulations, according to a federal court ruling.In April…

The Environmental Protection Agency will soon be expected to move forward revising coal ash regulations, according to a federal court ruling.

In April 2012, nearly a dozen environmental groups filed a lawsuit challenging the EPA’s inaction to revise coal ash regulations.

Coal ash, often referred to as fly ash, is a byproduct of burning coal.  Anything that doesn’t burn up, usually inorganic matter in the coal like shale, is left behind in boilers and is usually disposed of in landfills and settlement ponds.

Power plants in the U.S. produce about 140 million tons of the ash each year and according to the Environmental Protection Agency, about 1,000 active coal ash storage sites exist. West Virginia is home to more than twenty sites.

In their lawsuit, environmentalists said the EPA is in violation of the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) because they haven’t revised coal ash regulations in over a decade.

But coal ash has been an active subject of concern because of recent slurry spills and research into the chemical makeup of the waste product.

West Virginia’s Republican Congressman David McKinley saw a bill he introduced pass through the House this past summer. The Coal Residuals Reuse and Management Act limits the EPA’s authority to regulate coal ash and instead transfers that authority to individual states.

McKinely issued a statement in response to the court’s ruling saying the decision should motivate action from Congress. He says he’s concerned that his bill continues to be stalled in the Senate despite the Democratic support for the bill in the House.

The order of the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia offered few details about the timing or substance of the EPA’s rulemaking.  It should be noted the court did deny one of the environmentalists claims regarding testing procedures for coal ash contamination. The order says th court will issue a Memorandum Opinion within the next 30 days.

The EPA isn’t able to comment on these developments because the EPA is currently closed.

Exit mobile version