Photo by Brian Stansberry
Coal ash was all over the national media a few weeks ago, when the Sierra Club, Earthjustice, and the Environmental Integrity Project documented pollution at 39 disposal sites across the country.
But activists in Labadie, Mo., had been hard at work for a year already.
Last October, Patricia Schuba, whose background is in biology, was chatting with her nephew’s science teacher. “Have you heard what Ameren’s wanting to do in the Missouri Bottoms?” the teacher asked urgently.
Ameren UE had bought 1,100 acres, the teacher explained, to dump more coal waste.
“They call them ‘impoundments,’ which sounds nicer,” Schuba notes dryly. “They say they’re near capacity and want to add a 400-acre landfill—although they bought 1,100 acres. They’re going to bring the ash from all four St. Louis-area plants to Labadie!”
Of the four coal-burning power plants, Labadie’s the largest, then there’s Rush Island, Sioux, and Meramec. All told, they generate more than 1 million tons of coal waste a year.
Alarmed, Schuba “started looking at reports going back and forth between the Environmental Protection Association and the Labadie plant. I assumed there was somebody watching over this. And there was not.” No regular inspections, no water-quality monitoring. Coal ash is not considered a hazardous waste, so it is not regulated.
That’s about to change.
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency hasn’t felt quite right about coal ash since the Tennessee Valley Authority’s Kingston plant overflowed in December 2008. “The tragic spill flooded more than 300 acres of land with [coal ash] and flowed into the Emory and Clinch rivers,” the EPA notes. It is now preparing to regulate utility companies’ coal ash disposal. Its proposed rule notes that the residues “contain contaminants like mercury, cadmium and arsenic associated with cancer and various other serious health effects. EPA’s risk assessment and damage cases demonstrate that, without proper protections, these contaminants can leach into groundwater and often migrate to drinking water sources, posing public significant health concerns.”
Ameren’s argument is that the coal ash is diluted by large amounts of water used in the cooling process, and any heavy metals settle to the bottom of the pond. “They say the water’s clean—but that’s because they don’t measure for heavy metals,” Schuba says.
Mike Menne, vice president of environmental services at Ameren, points out that about 95 percent of the coal ash is a harmless blend of silicon, iron, aluminum, and calcium. It’s the trace metals, of course, that are controversial—coal ash has been known to contain mercury, arsenic, lead, selenium, chromium, cadmium, dioxin, uranium, and thorium.
Which heavy metals show up in Labadie, and how many are radioactive?
“That varies; it just depends on where the coal’s from,” Menne says.
Say, in the most recent test, which were present?
“I don’t believe we have any tests for any of our Missouri facilities. It’s certainly something we will be doing in the near future. We’re waiting on guidance from the EPA.”
The EPA is still deciding between two regulatory systems, but it’s already quite clear that “both options will require liners and groundwater monitoring, and corrective action if there is any contamination detected.”
Of the two waste ponds already in use at Labadie, one is entirely unlined, and the other is leaking.
“Well, leaking is a relative term,” Menne says. “There is a small area right near where we discharge from the pond into the river, and our sense, and the state’s sense, is that the discharge includes that. We monitor the discharge on a regular basis.”
So just how much is, in Ameren’s word, “seeping”? An answer comes a few hours later by email: “A rate of 2 to 5 gallons per minute, or 2,800 to 7,200 gallons a day.”
Menne adds, “As full disclosure, we do have another area where the water is going underneath one of our entrance roads.” Two leaks? “But that water stays on the property.”
No ground water monitoring is done. But Menne says Ameren does regularly monitor the pondwater that’s discharged into the Missouri River—an average 16 million gallons a day—to see how acidic it is and how many particles it contains. The basic concept is that the solids are supposed to settle to the bottom of the ponds. Not enter the river from which St. Louis County draws much of its drinking water.
“Discharges are well below drinking-water standards,” Menne promises.
But how does he know, if they don’t monitor heavy metals?
“To get the permits, we have to meet water quality standards,” he explains. “As a condition of renewal, we look at a wide range of metals and materials that may be there.”
And how often does Ameren have to re-apply for its permit?
“Every five years, but then the process can take a while.”
So when was the most recent application filed?
“For Labadie? It’s been quite a while, because there’s been a number of hold-ups due to some of the issues with the Missouri River. It’s been six or seven years. We’ll get back to you on that.”
The email arrives. The last permit was granted by DNR in 1998.
The new facility, Menne says, will be far different. “It’s quite likely that the existing ponds would have to be de-watered and closed. In the new system, you add just a little bit of water and spread it all over the ground, and it sets up like concrete.”
That sounds safer.
“Very much so. There will be a 2-foot clay liner underneath, then a polysynthetic liner over it, then a leachate collection system. And by handling it dry, you virtually eliminate any possibility of any of these trace metals getting into the environment.”
Good thing, Schuba says, because “the new regulations coming next year will make this ash even more toxic.” To clean up its air emissions, Ameren has to scrub more toxins out—so they’ll wind up in the ash.
When Ameren went to Franklin County last year to explain its plans for a new waste management facility, the county realized it had no regulations about government landfills and would need an amendment to its Planning & Zoning ordinances. Now the Labadie Environmental Organization and other groups are pressuring the P&Z Commission to say no.
What if the new facility doesn’t get approved? Does Ameren have a Plan B for those 1 million tons of waste?
“We hope, of course, that we can get their approval,” Menne says politely. “However, a power plant that’s supplying electricity to the St. Louis area, which is a public need, is really governed by the Public Service Commission.” A weighted pause; they don’t need the P&Z at all. “But we certainly want to make sure we are being good neighbors.”
Schuba’s not convinced. “Maybe in the future, we will have microbes that digest this stuff,” she says. “But until then, we are drinking that water every day. Mercury and lead and arsenic are not only carcinogens but neurotoxins and endocrine disrupters.
“Ameren has met with us and tried to assure us that everything is OK and this will be state-of-the-art. They like to use terms like that. But they are still not monitoring the ponds or instituting any protections. You can watch large trucks filled with coal ash leaving the plant on a daily basis.
“Ameren uses the public good, which is water, to manufacture the energy they sell to us, and what they give back is toxic.”
In response to vigorous public request, the EPA has extended its deadline for public comment to November 19. Send comments via email to rcra-docket@epa.gov, Attention Docket ID No. EPA–HQ–RCRA–2009–0640.
