What about the EPA?

In 2000, the EPA proposed more stringent federal controls of coal ash but backed away in the face of fierce opposition from utilities and the coal industry. At the time, the Edison Electric Institute, a trade association of power utilities, estimated the industry would have to spend up to $5 billion in additional cleanup costs if the substance were declared hazardous. In 2006 they recommended that ash pits be lined to prevent leaching of toxins. A 2007 E.P.A. report said that over about a decade, 67 towns in 26 states had their groundwater contaminated by heavy metals from such dumps. A draft report on August 6, 2008 by the federal Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) found that fly ash, a byproduct of the burning of coal to produce electricity, does contain significant amounts of carcinogens and retains the heavy metals present in coal in far higher concentrations. The report found that the concentrations of arsenic to which people might be exposed through drinking water contaminated by fly ash could increase cancer risks several hundredfold.

The risk assessment included the following alarming statistics:

• The risk of cancer is 1 in 100 for those living near ash filled surface impoundments.
• This risk is 10,000 times higher than the national standards.

The EPA still refuses to classify fly ash as either hazardous or non-hazardous waste, therefore, it is exempted from EPA regulation.

I have been in contact with an EPA spokesperson for over two weeks now. On March 9, 2009, the EPA issued Coal Ash Information Request Letters, When asked, they told me: “Their immediate concern was about the structural integrity of similar ash pond containment dikes like the one in Kingston, TN. We intend to address all of aspects of managing coal combustion waste, fugitive dust included, in a proposed rule that is scheduled for completion at the end of 2009.”

In another E-mail, they told me, “We very much appreciate the excellent factual and photographic documentation you have been feeding us about AES’ & Making Money Having Fun’s operations at Bokoshe, Oklahoma: this evidence comes handy on the eve of our rule making process. Finally, your letters, and certainly many of the photos, illustrate how a waste unit can be State-permitted as a landfill while it is actually a surface impoundment.”

Before I made contact with Washington, we tried to get our state officials involved and stand behind us on this issue. Contacted were Ed Cannaday, our state house representative, our district senator Kenneth Corn, the senators on the Energy and Environment committee, our US Senators and house representative and Ellen Burch of the Environmental Protection Unit of the State Attorney Generals Office. Everyone one except for the Honorable Ed Cannady and Washington has ignored us..

Copyright © 2009 by B.E. Cause All rights reserved.