A new report by the Environmental Integrity Project documents that 49 coal-fired power plants have contaminated groundwater at 116 coal ash disposal sites in the United States. The data which was released by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency in response to a Freedom of Information Act request revealed 28 previously unknown contamination sites in Iowa, Colorado, North Carolina, South Carolina, Texas, and West Virginia.

Coal-fired electric power plants generate approximately 140 million tons of leftover ash every year, which they store in ponds, landfills, and abandoned mines around the United States. To date, there are no federal regulations on the disposal of ash.

Activists living near power plants and environmental advocates have asked EPA to classify the ash –which can contain arsenic, manganese, boron, selenium, and cadmium – as a hazardous material and to regulate its disposal. A massive coal ash spill at Tennessee Valley Authority site in 2008 briefly focused national attention to the problem, but EPA is yet to act so communities live in fear of similar accidents or from groundwater contamination as disposal sites leak slowly.

According to the Sierra Club’s Beyond Coal campaign, “Living near a wet coal ash storage pond is significantly more dangerous than smoking a pack of cigarettes a day, according to a risk assessment done by EPA. . . . The toxins found in coal ash have been linked to organ disease, cancer, respiratory illness, neurological damage and developmental problems. People living with 1 mile of unlined coal ash ponds can have a 1 in 50 risk of cancer —that’s more than 2,000 times higher than what EPA considers acceptable.”

For 28 of the disposal sites, groundwater contamination had never been publicly revealed. “Some of these plants were under the radar, and had never been identified before by EPA or in our earlier reports on ash ponds and landfill,” explained Environmental Integrity Project Director Eric Schaeffer in a press release.

Another 42 of the 91 power plants surveyed by EPA disclosed no data, reporting that water monitoring data was unavailable, refusing on the grounds that monitoring data is proprietary information, or simply assuring EPA that there was no contamination. According to EIP, at least one plant that reported no contamination to the federal government has been implicated as the source of pollution in state monitoring efforts.

Read more: http://www.care2.com/causes/28-new-coal-ash-water-pollution-sites-revealed.html#ixzz1tQlobAdH

Comments

telliottmbamsc's picture
telliottmbamsc 3 years 40 weeks ago
#1

Bank of America is the country's biggest financier of coal

Special thanks to Environmental Action.

Rodger97321's picture
Rodger97321 1 year 24 weeks ago
#2

No mention of the December 23, 2008 Kingston Event ?

Just the Largest Spill ever.

Among the first promises of the newly elected Administration was to take overdue action to protect communities from coal ash hazards.

Lastest news is that their high-priority process [ well, last Fall the U.S. District Court for D.C. ruled that the EPA should stop pretending this wasn't their area of responsibility] and could be ready to finalize EPA regulations in time for the 6th Anniversary Celebration of the Kingston Event ( yeah, we're #1 - keep on trickin' & trickling .)

Add comment

Login or register to post comments

Latest Headlines

One Iowa Caucus Delegate Comes Down To Coin Toss

The Iowa caucus convener flipped a coin. Bernie Sanders supporters called "heads" and it landed on tails.

Bernie Sanders leads Hillary Clinton by 31 points in N.H.: Poll

Sanders was at 61 percent support in the University of Massachusetts Lowell/7News poll, followed by Mrs. Clinton, at 30 percent

Martin O'Malley suspends presidential campaign after Iowa caucuses

The announcement came after O'Malley barely registered in Iowa against his better-known rivals Clinton and Sanders, failing to meet already low expectations

Corporate-Managed Trade Deals Screw America

The New Hampshire primary is now just one day away, and differences between Bernie Sanders and Hillary Clinton couldn’t be clearer, especially when it comes to so-called free trade.

While Secretary Clinton’s views on corporate-managed trade have changed a lot over the years, Bernie’s haven’t.