Meanwhile, CCW continues to degrade water sources across the U.S. and the risk of another Kingston-like disaster remains just as high today as it was a year ago.

One year ago, the retaining wall at TVA’s Kingston Facility failed, spilling an estimated 5.4 million cubic yards of CCW into the Emory river and surrounding countryside in Harriman, TN.  While TVA initially  claimed that the CCW was not toxic and posed little threat, it quickly became apparent that this substance that was spread several feet deep over 300 acres of East Tennessee contained numerous heavy metals and carcinogens.

You can hear Dr. Stephen Smith, SACE Executive Director, discussing this issue during an interview on National Public Radio’s Morning Edition during an audio feature, “1 Year Later: TVA Still Cleaning Up Coal Ash Spill.”

The Kingston disaster thrust the coal plant safety generally and CCW specifically into the national spotlight. It became apparent that CCW was stored in retention ponds like the Kingston facility at hundreds of sites across the United States and that piecemeal state regulations were not adequate to protect against the threat that CCW poses.

EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson has postponed the release of proposed regulations for coal combustion waste

Shortly after the Kingston tragedy, SACE’s Executive Director, Stephen Smith, testified before the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee about the dangers of CCW and the failure of EPA to regulate CCW.  In January 2009, then newly-appointed EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson promised to have a proposal for regulating this toxic substance by the end of 2009. Unfortunately, it is now apparent this promise will not be fulfilled because the agency is still “actively clarifying and refining parts of the proposal.”  A new deadline for a decision has not been announced.

EPA and independent studies clearly document the hazardous nature of CCW.

The hazards of CCW are well documented.  EPA’s own reports, as well as numerous studies by independent environmental organizations and academic institutions have recorded the toxic chemicals present in CCW.  These include arsenic, aluminum, boron, cadmium, lead and others that are known to cause cancer, birth defects, reproductive problems and damage to nervous systems.  An EPA report issued in 2007 found that unlined coal ash waste ponds pose a cancer risk 900 times above what is defined as acceptable.  Later that year, another EPA report identified 24 proven and 42 potential damage cases as a result of CCW-caused contamination.

Human Health Effects of Toxins Found in Coal Combustion Waste

And the risk of these contaminants getting into nearby water sources is not limited to sudden releases like the one at the Kingston Facility.  Because of poor storage and disposal practices, CCW poses a significant threat to human health and the environment through the gradual leaching of these toxins into nearby ground and surface waters.  In some cases, CCW is disposed of by pumping it into abandoned coal mines where it then finds its way to nearby aquifers or rivers.  In other cases, it is a CCW impoundment that leaches into nearby water sources because of a lack of proper lining and monitoring.

In October, EPA released a study of toxins in wastewater discharges from coal ash impoundments.  It concluded what environmental groups like EarthJustice and EIP have known for years: that new regulations for  CCW are needed because of the significant toxic releases from impoundments and the likelihood that these releases will increase significantly over the next few years as new air pollution controls are installed (more on the increasing toxicity of CCW below).

Delaying regulation endangers the public as the risk of CCW continues to increase.

Federal regulation of CCW should be adopted immediately to ensure that surface impoundments across the U.S. are stabilized and that the toxins contained in CCW are no longer contaminating nearby water sources.  The toxicity of CCW is alarming in itself, but it is downright frightening when you consider that coal ash represents the second largest source of industrial waste in the country, with an estimated 130 million tons generated each year.

Three generations of pollution control at TVA's Kingston facility. As our air becomes cleaner, coal combustion waste will become dirtier and more dangerous.

And it’s getting more and more toxic.  As air quality regulations continue to tighten, more and more advanced pollution controls will keep toxins out of the air, but these toxins don’t just go away.  They remain in the coal combustion waste that now threatens our water sources.

EPA findings this past year seem to raise the stakes even further.  In June, EPA released a list of 44 “high hazard potential” sites at 26 different coal burning facilities across the United States.  Many of these facilities are located in the Southeast, including 13 sites at 8 facilities in North Carolina.  These sites are all similar to TVA’s Kingston facility that burst in December 2008 in that they are storing massive amounts of coal ash in loosely regulated storage ponds.  The Center for Public Integrity has posted an interactive map that allows you to identify the coal ash storage sites near you.  And if you live in the Southeast, there are coal ash storage sites near you.

In all, we need federal regulations immediately to first ensure that another Kingston disaster doesn’t happen, but also to stop the slow leaching of these same toxins due to poor storage and disposal of CCW.

So why the delay?

One possible explanation is that industry groups have expressed concern that regulating CCW as a hazardous waste would impede its beneficial reuse.  Nearly 1/3 of CCW is recycled in various uses such as filler material for concrete and asphalt.  Listing CCW as a hazardous waste would impose significant reporting and handling requirements that would make it more difficult to recycle.  However, the EPA is free to develop hybrid regulations that would regulate CCW as a hazardous waste until it enters the recycling chain, and then regulations would be lessened to encourage its beneficial reuse.

Another possibility is that the EPA is trying to determine whether to regulate only the storage of CCW in retention ponds or to regulate all storage and disposal of CCW.  It is generally agreed that wet storage facilities pose the greatest risk.  The slurry of water and coal ash means that the toxins contained in the CCW are more mobile and can more easily escape into nearby waterways.

However, dry storage of CCW in landfills, while preferable to wet storage in retention ponds, also poses significant risk if the landfill is not properly lined or does not include proper monitoring systems to detect the movement of CCW toxins into nearby aquifers or river systems.  Regulating only the wet storage of CCW would only address part of the problem.  Regulations must include requirements for synthetic liners and monitoring systems at dry-storage facilities to protect the public from this toxic substance.

The coal ash spill at TVA's Kingston facility could have been avoided if proper federal regulations were in place

Regardless of what is causing the delay, Lisa Jackson and the EPA must put the welfare of human health and the environment above all else.  Certainly we want to encourage the beneficial use of CCW, but not at the expense of our health or the health of our environment.  Protecting ourselves from this toxic substance requires storage and disposal in synthetically lined landfills that are equipped with monitoring systems to ensure that toxins aren’t leaching into nearby water sources.

All the evidence has been collected and it isn’t even a close call.  CCW poses a significant risk to human health and the environment.  The EPA must issue strict federal regulations that phase out CCW wet-storage and mandate proper safeguards for dry-storage facilities.

The EIP report issued on Dec. 8, 2009 featured…

New data highlighted in public for the first time today paint an even grimmer picture of the late December 2008 coal ash spill in Kingston, Tennessee.  Reports filed with the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) by the Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA) show that the TVA’s Kingston coal plant dumped into the Emory River in 2008 an estimated 140,000 pounds of arsenic contained in coal ash — more than twice the reported amount of the toxin discharged into U.S. waterways from all U.S. power plants in 2007.

We applaud the work of EIP and other groups for this excellent report.  It is critical for public and environmental health that we know the true toxicity of this terrible disaster.  TVA officials have been quoted in response to the dangers of this disaster with such brush offs as “this water is safe enough to swim in.”  And in response to this new EIP report, it appears that TVA officials are still denying the serious risks of this ash by claiming that heavy metals are not released when they dredge the soil.  This contention simply doesn’t make sense.  Obviously if TVA stirs up the toxic mud while they are dredging, the toxics are going to move downstream and dissolve more readily — just like sugar does when you stir your iced tea.

Charles H. Norris, P.G., Geo-Hydro, Inc., Denver, stated in the EIP press release:

“It is impossible to quantify the amount of toxic metals released from Kingston’s toxic coal ash into the Emory River before settling to the bottom of the river, and how much more may be released over time…  As the Emory River is dredged to help reduce the volume of toxic ash in the river, toxic metals like arsenic may leach into the water from any remaining ash on the river bottom over time, carrying contaminants further downstream, e.g., into the Clinch or Tennessee Rivers.”

And the EIP report clearly identifies:

Arsenic and other toxic metals were contained in the estimated one billion gallons of coal ash that spilled when the Kingston impoundment dikes burst on December 22, 2008. These toxic pollutants are hazardous to the health of humans, fish and other aquatic life.

The EIP analysis of the new TVA data finds a total of 2.66 million pounds of 10 toxic pollutants – arsenic, barium, chromium, copper, lead, manganese, mercury, nickel, vanadium and zinc.

Currently, there are no federal rules setting standards for the safe disposal of ash or limiting the discharge of toxic leachate into our waterways. EPA has announced that it will propose regulations for disposal of coal ash by the end of 2009.

Read the EIP press release and download the report.

The media coverage of this important new report is impressive:

1. Washington Business Journal
2. Knoxville News Sentinel
3. CNBC
4. Forbes
5. Chattanooga Times Free Press
6. Yahoo News
7. US Politics Today
8. Nashville Business Journal
9. Listen to the radio segment on the report release

Read our previous blogs on the TVA coal ash disaster here:

June 26, 2009  TVA Ash Spill Root Cause Analysis Released

June 12, 2009  Coal is a Dirty Business: PBS Special on Coal in Ga. In this PBS special, Anda Ray, TVA’s main PR spokesperson was asked if she would swim in the river now and Ray told Stahl, “Yes, I would.”  She later retracted her response after remembering there was an advisory against it.  “We’ve advised people not to swim in the river where there’s ash.”

June 12, 2009  Sen. Boxer: Public should be notified about high hazard coal ash sites

April 20, 2009  TVA struggling to meet court-ordered clean ups

December 22, 2008 SACE Press Updates on Coal Ash Disaster

Also, review the Direct Testimony from the TVA Office of the Inspector General before the House of Representatives about the failings of the TVA before the spill occurred and in response to clean up.

We brought this lawsuit to keep ratepayers from having to prepay for two nuclear reactors at Plant Vogtle near Waynesboro along the Savannah River that Georgia Power and its other utility partners have proposed to build. We’ve asked the Court to review the constitutionality of the so-called “construction work in progress” (CWIP) bill passed earlier this year, the Georgia Nuclear Energy Financing Act (SB 31), and the legality of the Georgia Public Service Commission’s approval of Georgia Power’s request to certify building two new reactors at the Vogtle site.

Consumer Rip-Off
Many others share our concerns about this consumer rip-off unfolding if the high-risk Vogtle expansion goes forward under the new Georgia law or the Georgia PSC’s ruling:

• Clark Howard, a national consumer advocate spoke out strongly against SB31 and how Georgia Power and big industrial and commercial companies in Georgia struck a deal with lawmakers to force 100% of the cost of building new reactors at Vogtle onto small consumers saying this is “where the actual real effects of corruption are borne by you and me, not indirectly but immediately and directly.”

• The Fulton County Taxpayers Foundation initiated a lawsuit in 2009 against the Georgia PSC and the Georgia governor on similar concerns. An editorial from the Chattanooga Times Free Press agreed that both the Southern Alliance for Clean Energy and the Taxpayers Foundation pleas had merit.

• Georgia Watch’s Angela Speir Phelps (a former Georgia Public Service Commissioner) commented on how sharply biased against consumers the Georgia PSC 4-1 vote was on the proposed Vogtle expansion. Georgia Watch, Georgia AARP and many others tried to stop state lawmakers from voting for Georgia Power’s and their large customers’ sweetheart Vogtle deal against small businesses and residential customers.

• Even the Georgia PSC’s own Public Interest Advocacy staff, which is charged with balancing the interest of the ratepayer and the electric utility, stated in their March 6, 2009 filing “there can be no serious question that CWIP is harmful to ratepayers. It will cost ratepayers more, deprive ratepayers of the use of their money during the construction period, and create intergenerational inequities.” View the PSC analysis of SB31.

Historical Boondoggles
In the 1970s and 80s the utility industry made a huge financial mess when they built nuclear reactors. There were construction delays and huge cost overruns; many projects were canceled after spending billions of dollars. The industry blamed their problems on changing regulations but it was Wall Street that stopped the nuclear boom. Some reactor projects came in with massive overruns compared to others. The two reactors at Vogtle were among the worst as outlined by expert David Schlissel during the Vogtle certification case. The real problem with the first two Vogtle reactors was poor management. The last time Georgia Power said trust us when it wanted to build Vogtle reactors 1 & 2, projected costs skyrocketed from $660 million for four reactors to $8.7 billion for two – a 1200% increase! This ultimately led, at the time, to the worst rate hike Georgians had ever experienced. In today’s challenging economic times Georgians can no longer be expected to foot the bill for Georgia Power Company follies.

Nuclear Socialism
The main thing the utility industry learned from the last generation of nuclear plants was how to pass risk on to their customers. Plant Vogtle is at the head of the line competing for federal nuclear loan guarantees – billions of taxpayer funds are to back these shaky new reactor proposals. What was never learned but should have been was that the full financial risk of these reactors should belong entirely to the utility that builds them.

Georgia Public Service Commissioners want you to believe that they’ll protect you if costs get too far out of whack this time around. But here’s the real deal:

• The proposed two new Vogtle reactors that Georgia Power wants to build have never been built anywhere in the world. The Toshiba-Westinghouse AP1000 is being built for the first time in China and Georgia Power is pushing to make Georgia ratepayers the new nuclear guinea pigs in the U.S., thanks to the Georgia Commissioners green light.

• The AP1000 design is facing obstacles as the Nuclear Regulatory Commission recently announced serious safety concerns with the ability for some components to withstand strong weather events among other scenarios. This could lead to schedule and budget problems.

• Georgia Power and its parent Southern Company have limited management over the new reactor construction because they’ve turned over most of the control to Westinghouse to work for a consortium of companies. (Be aware that the Georgia PSC has no regulatory authority over Westinghouse or this consortium).

• Change orders can come up at any time when Westinghouse and the construction team determine the new Vogtle reactors will cost more than originally agreed upon. Georgia Power testified to the Georgia PSC in November 2009 that only a few months into the project the Company has already received notice of an unspecified number of potential change orders. The PSC has set itself up to have little control over this situation except to pull the plug on the costly project. The more they let Georgia Power sink funds the more ratepayers are on the hook for having to pay for costly problems with the new reactors.

• Even though Georgia families and businesses are footing the bill, Georgia Power likes to keep the public in the dark – especially with what’s going wrong at Vogtle – here’s a sample page of Georgia Power’s testimony filed at the PSC. The word ‘redacted’ is listed over one hundred times in just thirteen pages of testimony. The public can only see the background on the Vogtle problems that Georgia Power is struggling with by signing a confidentiality agreement and pledging to never discuss the matter publicly. The company claims it would be competitively disadvantaged so much that it could hurt ratepayers if it reveals the information publicly.

Southern Alliance for Clean Energy Takes Action
Judge Marvin Arrington is presiding over both the Southern Alliance for Clean Energy and the Fulton County Taxpayer’s Foundation lawsuits. So far in this case, Georgia Power and the Georgia PSC have objected to our claims that the governor and PSC acted illegally. They argue that Georgia Power ratepayers are not yet harmed by decisions made by the PSC and that our lawsuit is premature. We don’t agree that it’s okay to wait for electric bills to skyrocket and are pushing forward to protect Georgians from the big corporate interests now. We’ll argue our case in court, which is now scheduled for December 2, 2009.

Building new reactors at Plant Vogtle should be halted because it’s too costly and risky for Georgians. If this scheme is not stopped, Georgia families and small businesses will be paying for new reactors years before any electricity is produced and regardless of whether the reactors are ever built. Georgia Power, the Georgia Public Service Commissioners and the majority of state lawmakers have ignored these consumer concerns. We hope our efforts can change that. Please help us continue this work to protect Georgia families and small businesses. And stay tuned for more!

UPDATE: At the December 2, hearing in Futon County Superior Court, Judge Arrington recused himself from the case. A new Judge will need to be assigned to the case. Listen to the GPB radio interview here.

State Rep. Phil Frye responds to audience questions. Rep. Frye is currently supporting wind energy in WNC and is very interested to see a pilot project developed in his district to show the potential benefits to the local and state economy.

The dust has settled after a last minute ban on mountain wind energy in North Carolina was inserted into an otherwise responsibly written state-wide wind permitting bill by the North Carolina Senate.  We believe now is the time to have a constructive and thoughtful dialogue about these issues to ensure that we protect local rights to choose whether or not to develop clean energy in their communities.

Over the past week, hundreds of people ranging from interested citizens to representatives, environmental groups, and academic institutions to the agriculture community, reengaged in the wind energy discussion in western North Carolina through two public wind forums held in Asheville, NC and Spruce Pine, NC.  SACE staff participated in the second half of a radio show hosted by Our Southern Community (listen to Radio Part 1 and Radio Part 2) after the wind forum in Asheville.

SACE and WNCA also took time recently to meet with the Asheville Citizen-Times editorial board to discuss wind energy in the mountains of North Carolina (watch the video here).  In each of these venues we saw repeatedly that wind power triggers very emotional responses from residents of the mountains and thus, we feel, it is critically important that the public get the facts about wind energy and in particular, the facts about how we can protect our mountain resources as we pursue this much needed source of clean energy.

An Appalachian State University study that looks at the highest quality wind sites (class 4 and above) that are near existing transmission lines and existing roads (to ensure that less development would be necessary), also takes into consideration the exclusion of critical natural areas. By excluding 98% of our mountain lands that are:
• at least 1 mile from the Blue Ridge Parkway and Appalachian Trail,
• Federal lands (ie. Great Smoky Mountains National Park and National Forests),
• State lands,
• Important Bird Areas,
• Spruce fir habitats (like Mt. Mitchell State Park),
• and significant natural heritage areas,
they found that there is still 787 MW of feasible wind power in western North Carolina.  These potential projects represent approximately three dozen wind sites across the 24 county region on only 2% of mountain lands.

Here is what this study’s findings mean:

Wind energy creates jobs. There are 85,000 people currently employed in the wind industry in the United States.  These are

NC Senator Joe Sam Queen addresses the Spruce Pine audience. Sen. Queen currently opposes mountain wind energy and stated to a SACE staff person that the 787 MW of wind potential in WNC is "insignificant."

healthy, sustainable, long-term jobs.  We are puzzled as to why several NC state Senators are telling the wind industry to keep their jobs in the Midwest when we need them here at home. According to the National Renewable Energy Laboratory’s economic development model, 787 MW of wind energy is equivalent to 350 well-paid, long-term (20+ year) jobs.  In rural western North Carolina, these numbers mean 350 families raising their kids, participating in building local economies, and investing their time, money, and lives into our mountains.

Wind energy creates local economic benefits. All of us from western North Carolina are painfully aware of the struggles to pay bills for schools and hire teachers in our most rural counties. The best wind energy resources happen to exist in these rural counties and represent an estimated $8.1 million in local economic benefits from tax payments alone that will come from the buildout of a small portion western North Carolina’s overall wind energy potential.

Wind energy helps local citizens keep their lands. Many local farmers, be they apple growers or Christmas tree farmers, are facing critical times in this economy.  Big developers want to buy their land out from under them at prices that are hard to refuse.  But most of these farmers would prefer to keep the beautiful mountain lands that have been in their families for generations and not sell them out to be ravaged by housing developments. Wind energy development actually provides the best of both worlds and offers a truly unique opportunity for local landowners.

Here’s how it works:  When wind turbines are built, the company leases land as a way of leasing the rights to the wind that blows across these lands. 787 MW of wind energy represents between $2 million and $3.5 million in annual lease payments each year.  And since wind projects only require about 2% of the actual land leased to build the turbines, this means that the rest of the land may continue being used to farm, hunt, fish, or grow our prized crops  or Christmas trees. If this isn’t a win-win situation, we don’t know what is!

Wind energy is good for the environment. Wind energy produces no pollution and uses no water. The National Academy of Sciences recently released a report noting that wind energy has the least amount of environmental impact of all the generation sources. With this said, wind energy projects should still be required to conduct site specific studies demonstrating the projects will have little to no significant adverse impacts to biological species, ecological systems, treasured viewsheds, avian and bat populations, and must address noise concerns.

Wind energy is in fact an opportunity to our mountain communities, not a threat. By tightening up some of the language in the original bill Senate Bill 1068, (which was written by the Department of Environment and Natural Resources (DENR) after months of compromising between environmental groups, state agencies, non-profits, the wind industry, and academic experts), SACE is confident wind energy can be introduced in a way that provides significant amounts of clean electricity to the region, creates jobs, and protects our environment, our North Carolina heritage, and our lands.

Finally, wind energy is geographically competitive. States such as Pennsylvania and West Virginia are currently reaping the benefits of flourishing wind energy markets. Project developers look for the markets where the rules are certain. And, across the country, where wind is being developed, manufacturing is following. This is perhaps the real baby the North Carolina Senators are throwing out with the bath water. The state of North Carolina has a retired manufacturing sector that is ripe for a renaissance. You don’t need to dig to find the scars left by the textile industry’s abandonment of the North Carolina economy.

The wind that blows over our mountaintops contains dollars and jobs for the entire state to harness today, we must demand our leaders reach up and grab it.

This blog post was written by Brandon Blevins (brandon[at]cleanenergy.org) and Ulla Reeves (ulla[at]cleanenergy.org).

This week, President Obama stated that the U.S. and China must step-up to lead in these negotiations and indicated he would travel to Copenhagen if negotiators get close to a framework deal and his presence could help to clinch it.

Heartening news, indeed, when you consider that former President Bush was a perennial no-show at these annual climate summits.  Moreover, the U.S. delegates who did attend proved to be so counter-productive in discussions in Bali in 2007 that a delegate from Papua New Guinea invoked the words of the famous American writer, Thomas Paine, imploring our nation to either, “lead, follow or get out of the way.”  In order for the U.S. to lead on the international stage as a credible player in the upcoming negotiations, it is essential that we can demonstrate some measures of progress made advancing climate and energy policies at home.

In less than one year, the United States has achieved some credible gains in domestic climate and energy policy.  In January, President Obama cited climate change and the need for solutions in his inaugural address, and the next month we saw the passage of an economic recovery package that included tens of billions of dollars in incentives for energy efficiency measures, such as weatherization, clean energy.

In May, the Administration indicated it would begin to craft a single new national automotive emission standard while increasing the fuel efficiency of cars and light trucks in order to reduce oil imports and global warming pollution at the same time.  Then in June, the U.S. House of Representatives — for the first time in history — debated and then passed the American Clean Energy & Security Act, a bill that would set a limit on global warming pollution while promoting renewable energy and energy efficiency.

Although the Senate has been slower to act, this month saw not one but two critical steps towards enacting climate legislation in this Congress. As the Senate Environment and Public Works committee debated and approved the democratic-introduced Clean Energy Jobs & American Power Act, a bi-partisan trio - Senators Kerry (D-MA), Graham (R-SC) and Lieberman (I-CT) - announced that they will begin work on a “dual track” climate bill with help from the Obama Administration.

While these individual steps don’t yet equal the comprehensive clean energy and climate policies that we need, when taken as a whole they are hopeful signs the U.S. is finally serious about legislating solutions at home, essential if we are to lead abroad.

The Southern Alliance for Clean Energy will be among the attendees in Copenhagen next month, as discussed in a recent radio interview on Conservation Matters/You Need to Know.  Follow our blogposts and Twitter updates and join us for a webinar designed to keep our members and allies updated on the proceedings and outcomes as SACE works to show Congressional and world leaders that businesses and citizens from the Southeast want a clean energy future and expect bold climate action.

The clean ups are a result of a 2006 lawsuit filed by the state of North Carolina arguing that emissions from TVA’s coal plants are a public nuisance for the state’s residents. U.S. District Court Judge Lacy Thornburg ordered TVA to install scrubbers that would limit emissions from Bull Run, Kingston, and John Sevier coal plants in East Tennessee and Widows Creek in Northeast Alabama.

Interestingly, the ruling may force TVA to have a public discussion about retiring some old coal plants. Widows Creek coal boiler units 1 - 6 are some of TVA’s oldest and least efficient coal units, coming online in 1952. This means that it takes more coal (measured in British Thermal Units (Btu)) to generate a unit of electricity (measured in kilowatt- hours). Simply stated: the less efficient the coal plant, the more coal mined, the more air pollution and more global warming pollution. Units 7 - 8 at Widows Creek have older scrubbers and are generally more efficient and will likely continue to operate.

The mandated December 2011 deadline is simply an aftereffect of TVA deliberately delaying the inevitable while crossing their fingers that Judge Thornburg would side against North Carolina in the lawsuit. Being held to an accelerated timeline is the price TVA will have to pay for their failure to invest in clean technology and install readily available pollution control technology. Click below to hear more of my thoughts.

Click here for the .pdf of the presentation.