But there’sa growing awareness of possible environmental and health dangers posed by thecoal ash produced by these plants.
About70%-85% of coal ash in Wisconsinis recycled and used to create other products, like concrete and cement. Therest is sent to landfills and is regulated just like other waste products.
Yet oldercoal ash sites, and sites in other states, aren’t as strictly regulated.
Environmentalistsclaim that coal ash is a public health hazard when not disposed of properly.
“Coal ash istoxic material,” said Rosemary Wehnes of the Wisconsin John Muir Chapter of theSierra Club. “It’s got arsenic, lead, mercury and a lot of toxic substancesthat can cause health problems. I think the testing methods have improved quitea bit since the early days. Now, with the new testing methods, they’rerealizing that this stuff is a lot worse than they had originally thought.”
A studyreleased last week by the Sierra Club, the Environmental Integrity Project andEarthjustice alleges that We Energies’ coal ash disposal site in the OakCreek-Caledonia area is a source of pollutants in drinking water. The ash iscoming from We Energies’ recently expanded Oak Creek coal-fired power plant.
The studycalls attention to high levels of molybdenuma naturally occurring metal thatis toxic in larger dosesand boron in drinking wells in 12 wells near the coalash site.
We Energiesadmits to providing 26 homes near the site with drinking water after the stateimplemented a molybdenum standard in 2007. The utility had agreed in 1989 tosupply drinking water to residents if elevated levels of various materials werefound. About 12 private wells have tested above the state standards formolybdenum, although the levels of the material fluctuate.
“We’re doingit beyond what was required per that agreement,” We Energies spokesman BarryMcNulty said of the utility-supplied drinking water.
However,while We Energies is supplying drinking water, it isn’t admitting that its coalash landfill is the source of the elevated levels of molybdenum. The stateDepartment of Natural Resources (DNR) is reviewing We Energies’ data, McNultysaid.
“But we feltthat the prudent and responsible thing to do, as per our agreement [with theneighbors] as well, would be to provide the drinking water in the meantimeuntil a source was determined,” McNulty said.
Ann Coakley,waste and materials management director for the DNR, confirmed that thedepartment is trying to identify the source of the molybdenum.
“We do knowthat We Energies conducted an investigation recently to see if the molybdenumis coming from their landfills and they concluded that it’s not coming from theash landfills,” Coakley said. “But the department has not yet made thatdetermination. We don’t know the source yet. We haven’t ruled out We Energies.But we are looking at what the other sources might be.”
FederalRegulations Up for Debate
We Energies’McNulty blasted the report, arguing that it was rushed, “irresponsiblyproduced” and filled with inaccuracies. He argued that the environmental groupsproduced it to generate opposition to coal just before the U.S. EnvironmentalProtection Agency (EPA) holds a hearing on federal coal ash regulations in Chicago on Sept. 16. TheSierra Club is encouraging its supporters to attend the hearing.
Currently,the EPA leaves regulation up to the states, but it’s proposing various rulechanges.
“While thefederal Clean Air Act has regulated air emissions, there hasn’t been somethingsimilar as far as federal regulations for the disposal of that toxic [coal ash]material,” Wehnes said. “I think that the coal industry has taken the attitudeof ‘Don’t look there.’”
The agencycould leave coal ash disposal regulations to the states. Or it could classifycoal ash as hazardous waste, which would have to be disposed of in highlyregulated landfills.
But theDNR’s Coakley said that Wisconsinlacks a hazardous waste site. In addition, Wisconsin is a national leader in what’scalled the “beneficial use” of coal ash by reusing it in products such asconcrete. Classifying coal ash as hazardous waste would weaken that effort,Coakley said.
“The EPA’srules state that it could still be used in products,” Coakley said. “But peoplewho use it in products wouldn’t be as keen on using it if it were classified ashazardous waste. We think our 70%-85% rate might not go down to nothing, but itwould go way, way down. That would be unfortunate because it’s been sosuccessfully, beneficially used in this state. We have a nationally recognizedprogram for beneficial use.”
But Wehnesargues that labeling coal ash as hazardous waste would increase the amount thatwould be reused.
“Companieswill try to figure out how they can reduce what they’re producing or they’lllook for other ways that they can use it,” Wehnes said.
