Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Toxic Metal Content in Appalachian Coal

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Topic Forums » Environment/Energy Donate to DU
 
philb Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri May-04-07 10:52 PM
Original message
Toxic Metal Content in Appalachian Coal
Edited on Fri May-04-07 10:59 PM by philb
Toxic Metal Content in Appalachian Coal

------parts----tons per-----tons per----pounds
per million---million tons----year * -- per year in
-----------------of coal--------------ash & emissions
Mercury------- 0.2-----0.2-------1-------------2000
Lead------------14------14------70-------------140000
Arsenic---------15------15------75-------------150000
Cadmium-------- 8-------8------ 40--------------80000
Aluminum------- 17000---17000---85000-------- 170000000
Barium ---------2600---2600----13000-------- 26000000
Berylium------- 3------ 3-------15----------- 30000
Chromium------- 23----- 23----- 115----------- 230000
Copper--------- 16----- 16----- 80------------- 160000
Manganese------ 80----- 80----- 400------------ 800000
Nickel----------18----- 18----- 90------------- 180000
Selenium------- 3------ 3------ 15------------- 30000
Thallium--------25 25 125 250000
Thorium---------3.1---- 3.1-----15.5--------- 31000
Uranium---------1.8---- 1.8---- 9------------- 18000
Vanadium------- 5.7---- 5.7---- 28.5----------- 57000
Zinc----------- 0.8 0.8 4 8000

Total ----19,817 99,083 198,166,000

* assumes plant burns 5 million tons per year (2 large coal units)

source: Radian Corporation, "Estimating Air Toxics Emissions from Coal Sources",
U.S. EPA, 1989, NTIS PB89-194229
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
philb Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri May-04-07 11:03 PM
Response to Original message
1. Activists say EPA ignoring threat from coal ash

http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/07068/768097-113.stm

Activists say EPA ignoring threat from coal ash
Waste is leaching into groundwater, posing health risks

Friday, March 09, 2007
By Don Hopey, Pittsburgh Post-Gazette

Despite possessing data showing lagoons and landfills filled with coal ash present a cancer risk up to 10,000 times greater than federal rules allow, a coalition of environmental groups says, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency has failed to fulfill a promise to adopt public health regulations for those sites.
A group of 27 environmental groups led by Earthjustice, a nonprofit public interest law firm, this week made public a summary of the EPA’s own cancer risk assessments for coal ash disposal sites and called on the agency finally to control the waste from coal-fired power plants.
“It’s very simple. Coal combustion waste currently disposed without adequate safeguards poses an imminent and substantial endangerment to health and the environment in dozens of communities throughout the country,” said Earthjustice attorney Lisa Evans. “EPA has made no effort to protect the public against these pollution sources for over seven years. We believe it is time to act.”
The EPA’s report on coal combustion waste has been submitted to the federal Office of Management and Budget for review, according to Roxanne Smith, an EPA spokeswoman. No date is scheduled for its release.
Ms. Smith said the EPA has determined that the coal ash does not warrant regulation as hazardous waste. The agency has been working with the Utility Solid Waste Activities Group, a lobbying consortium of 80 utility operating companies, to develop a voluntary plan for managing the waste.
Coal ash is one of the largest streams of solid waste in the United States and includes fly ash, bottom ash and air emission scrubber sludge. Analysis of the waste has found toxins including arsenic, mercury, chromium, cadmium, lead, selenium and boron that can cause deformities, reproductive problems and cancers in humans.
Each year, the nation’s 450 coal-burning utility plants produce more than 130 million tons of ash and dispose of it in 600 landfills and surface impoundments or lagoons. Pennsylvania produces more than 9.5 million tons of coal ash waste a year, more than every state but Kentucky, Texas and Indiana.
Nationwide, 40 percent of the landfills accepting coal waste and 80 percent of the impoundment lagoons do not have liners that would prevent pollutants from leaching into the groundwater. Fewer than half of the landfills and 1 percent of the impoundments have leachate collection systems.
There are seven permitted coal ash impoundments that are active in Pennsylvania, only one of which is lined. The unlined impoundments were all opened before 1992, when state regulations were changed to require a liner. Those state regulations mandate groundwater monitoring at all seven facilities, according to Helen Humphreys, a state Department of Environmental Protection spokeswoman.
She said about 40 percent of the coal ash produced each year is used in wallboard and cement products. Over the last two decades, the ash also has been used to fill and reclaim more than 110 abandoned mine sites.
According to the EPA’s unreleased draft study summary, pollution from coal combustion waste dumps and lagoons has contaminated surface water and groundwater at up to 78 sites in 23 states.

The agency’s calculations indicate that the cancer risk for adults and children drinking groundwater contaminated with arsenic from those sites can be as high as one in 100. Most federal health regulations require that the risk of contracting cancers from pollutants be limited to one in 100,000 or one in 1 million.
None of the proven contamination sites is in Pennsylvania although a 1988 EPA report to Congress says monitoring wells around Reliant Energy’s Elrama power plant in Washington County found cadmium levels up to 20 times higher than federal Drinking Water Standards allow in a former strip mine used for coal ash.
The environmental groups have submitted a proposal to the EPA that recommends restrictions on lagoon and landfill locations away from groundwater aquifers, floodplains and wetlands; design criteria to prohibit new lagoon construction; and tougher groundwater monitoring rules.
The groups also called on the EPA to take immediate action to monitor, investigate and abate pollution from coal ash waste sites.
“Because of the lack of groundwater monitoring, we don’t know if there’s been damage or contamination of our groundwater. That’s a basic problem at almost all the sites,” said Lisa Graves Marcucci, a leader of the Jefferson Action Group, formed several years ago to oppose a coal ash landfill in southern Allegheny County.
She said that with 150 new power plants planned in the nation, eight of them in Pennsylvania, there is an urgent need for mandatory monitoring and regulation of what will be a growing coal ash waste stream.

(Don Hopey can be reached at dhopey@post-gazette.com or 412-263-1983. )
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
oldgrowth Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri May-04-07 11:13 PM
Response to Original message
2. Here's a site that show what there doing to get it !!!
Edited on Fri May-04-07 11:27 PM by oldgrowth
Look on the right side for Toxic West Virginia!!Episode 1: Mountaintop Removal video !
http://www.vbs.tv/
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
philb Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri May-04-07 11:18 PM
Response to Reply #2
3. problem with your URL
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Dogmudgeon Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-05-07 02:20 AM
Response to Original message
4. These are figures for ONE coal plant
There are, what, 10,000 of these monsters currently in operation?

And 49,000 pounds of radioactive particulate matter each year per coal-fired power plant.

Excellent find, philb!

--p!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
philb Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-05-07 10:43 PM
Response to Reply #4
5. EPRI says only takes 1/2 gram of mercury to contaminate all fish in 10 acre lake
to the extent that there would need to be a mercury warning and unable to eat the fish safely.

Over 33% of Floridians tested have high/dangerous levels of mercury and over 50% in S. Florida where
FPL has proposed building a large coal plant on the bank of Lake Okeechobee at the edge of the Everglades.

Over 20 % of all in U.S. tested have high/dangerous levels of mercury according to medical lab tests.

http://www.greenpeace.org/raw/content/usa/press/reports/a-statistical-analysis-of-fact.pdf
By state:
http://www.greenpeace.org/raw/content/usa/press/reports/accompanying-data-tables-by-st.pdf

The amount of mercury (1 ton per year) in the coal of this one plant is enough to contaminate all fish in Florida to dangerous levels(fresh water and salt water).

The majority of Florida fish in freshwater lakes already have mercury warnings and saltwater fish are generally higher in mercury than freshwater fish. They have mercury warnings also, for virtually all predator species- those commonly eaten.

www.flcv.com/fishhg.html


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ramapo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon May-07-07 10:43 AM
Response to Reply #5
10. And we thought the nukes would kill us
The pervasive pollution caused by coal is absolutely stunning. Yet we see coal burning plants springing up like dandelions.

Makes the neighborhood nuke plant seem rather benign. It would never get away with this level of harmful emissions.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
razzleberry Donating Member (877 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-05-07 11:45 PM
Response to Original message
6. anything is better than petroleum
and the human suffering it brings
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
NickB79 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-05-07 11:50 PM
Response to Reply #6
7. The human and animal suffering from global warming will be unimaginable
And coal is just as responsible, if not more so, than petroleum.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Hoverflysr4 Donating Member (7 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun May-06-07 04:57 PM
Response to Reply #7
8. Gasification?
Would coal gasification co gen power plants solve many of the problems with these pollutents?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
NickB79 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun May-06-07 05:02 PM
Response to Reply #8
9. With the heavy metals, somewhat. With the CO2, no
Burning coal will release CO2, which is rapidly becoming the most dangerous substance known to man. Gasifying it will increase the efficiency of the plant so that less coal will need to be burned, but it still relies on some burning of coal.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
philb Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-12-07 12:10 PM
Response to Reply #9
11. Mercury & toxic metals may be as big a problem as CO2- just not as known
National Academy of Sciences study documented 50% of U.S. pregnancies in 1990s resulted in birth defects or
developmental disabilities- learning disabilities, ADHD, autism, mood and anxiety disorders, eczema, MD, asthma, chronic respiratory conditions, etc.
And studies document that the majority were due to prenatal and neonatal exposures to toxics- mostly mercury and toxic metals but also pesticides, etc.

www.flcv.com/tmlbn.html
www.flcv.com/pesticid.html
www.flcv.com/endocrin.html
www.flcv.com/kidshg.html

Mercury is a worldwide pollutant in the food chain and oceans, etc. Having huge effects
Mercury is documented in the medical literature to be a common cause of over 30 chronic health conditions-
including MS, Lupus, rheumatoid arthritis, depression, cardiovascular conditions, neurological conditions, hormonal conditions(thyroiditis,diabetes,etc.)
The case is easier to document with dental amalgam mercury
www.home.earthlink.net/~berniew1/indexa.html
hundreds of thousands have recovered from such conditions after dealing with mercury
www.home.earthlink.net/~berniew1/hgremove.html

but fish is also a major source of exposure and has effects; widespread warnings to not eat fish since
large fish most areas have dangerous levels of mercury
www.flcv.com/fishhg.html


www.home
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
NNadir Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-12-07 06:53 PM
Response to Reply #6
12. You must be joking. You're talking about coal.
I believe all fossil fuels should be phased out, but here is the best order in which to do it:

Coal, oil, natural gas. This is exactly the order, worst to best, in external costs.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
eppur_se_muova Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-12-07 10:30 PM
Response to Original message
13. Interesting -- U and Th in the exhaust could provide a lot of energy.
Edited on Sat May-12-07 10:33 PM by eppur_se_muova
18,000 lbs U = 8200 kg which could provide as much energy as 6+ million tons of coal -- from a plant that burns 5 million tons of coal. (This is assuming the U in the following excerpt is 3% U-235; if the excerpt refers to 0.7% U-235 the energy is equal to 27 million tons of coal.)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uranium
"by the time it is completely fissioned, one kilogram of uranium can theoretically produce about 20 trillion joules of energy (20×1012 joules); as much electricity as 1500 tonnes of coal.<2> Generally this is in the form of enriched uranium, which has been processed to have higher-than-natural levels of uranium-235..."

on edit: not that this recommends coal as a source of nuclear fuel ... just kind of ironically highlights the wastefullness of it all ...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
philb Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-12-07 10:46 PM
Response to Reply #13
14. if they build a lot of nuke plants & supply declines; can use coal ash as source
Edited on Sat May-12-07 10:48 PM by philb
some say coal plants are a bigger source of radioactive exposure than nuke plants
I haven't checked out those stats, but I wouldn't be surprised.
I hear that St Andrews Bay and related sea food is high in radioactive isotopes due to radiative materials from the
Smith coal plant in Panama City.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Wed May 01st 2024, 09:03 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Topic Forums » Environment/Energy Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC