The silver-tongued liars’ playbook for coal

Coal ash scare stories are the latest tactic in their long war on coal-fueled electricity generation

Guest essay by Paul Driessen

Foreword:

People routinely accept risks of dying from activities they happily engage in daily. For example, the lifetime risk of dying in a motor vehicle crash is 1 in 113. That’s 8,850 times greater than the alleged lifetime risk of contracting cancer from 0.07 parts per billion of hexavalent chromium (Cr-6) in water.

Nevertheless, Cr-6 is a handy weapon in radical environmentalists’ war on coal, because it is found in fly ash from coal-fired generating plants, and many people are easily terrified by “detectable” levels of strange-sounding chemicals. The US Environmental Protection Agency and North Carolina both set the same allowable Cr-6 limits, and health experts note that the chemical comes not just from coal fly ash, but from natural rock formations across the USA.

However, anti-coal activists want absurdly low Cr-6 standards applied to all water. Perhaps even more absurd, they want utility companies to dig up millions of tons of coal ash, and haul it in tens of thousands of dump trucks, perhaps hundreds of miles … to who knows where? In whose backyard?


Coal-fired power plant scrubbers now remove 80-90 % of airborne particulate, mercury, sulfur dioxide, nitrogen oxide and other pollutants. But that means “fly ash” and noncombustible residues (what we used to call clinkers) must be sent to landfills. That’s opened a new front for anti-energy activists, who use accidents, “detectable” pollutants in water, and scary stories about health threats to advance their agenda.

In 2008, a Tennessee Valley Authority earthen retainer dam near Knoxville ruptured, sending 5.4 million cubic yards of rain-soaked fly ash into a nearby river, lake and neighborhood. Twelve homes were damaged by the muck, which contained low levels of arsenic, cadmium and other metals. The TVA’s cleanup efforts were less than exemplary, as were its measures to prevent the accident in the first place.

Companies and regulators clearly must do more to prevent accidents and pollution – and more to educate people about the actual risks involved. With a new fly ash playbook being tested in North Carolina, Virginia and other states, as part of the war on coal and the keep-fossil-fuels-in-the-ground campaign, those informational efforts are vital.

Duke Energy operates 14 coal-fired electricity generating plants in North Carolina – and several large fly ash facilities. Like coal itself, the ash contains trace amounts of hexavalent chromium (chromium-6 or Cr-6) and other metals that can be toxic to humans in high doses. Blazing temperatures bond the vast majority tightly in glassy vitrified ash, and well maintained impoundments ensure that few seep out.

However, tiny amounts can still escape into nearby surface waters and groundwater. Highly sensitive scientific instruments can now detect parts per trillion – the equivalent of a few seconds in 3,300 years. In 2016, an NC state toxicologist ruled that metallic levels detected in surface and ground water around the state were dangerously high. He blamed ash from coal-fired power plants and persuaded Tar Heel health officials to send “do not drink” letters to several hundred families living near coal ash disposal sites.

In his view, there is “no safe level” for exposure to Cr-6, and the state should slash its allowable level from 100 parts per billion down to 0.07 ppb (1,428 times lower). Other health officials reviewed the scientific literature, determined that amounts detected pose no health risk, noted that Cr-6 often seeps from natural rock formations into surface and ground water, and rescinded the warning letters. But the resulting controversy continues, and the company, regulators and politicians are trying to resolve it.

Duke Energy and many health experts maintain that Cr-6 levels found near the ash facilities (and miles away, from natural sources) are far below what cause health risks. But it wants to assuage concerns among families closest to the ash facilities. So the company offered to provide alternatives to their well water, by giving them access to public water sources or installing state-of-the-art home filtration systems.

In January 2017, the NC Department of Environmental Quality (NCDEQ) granted preliminary approval to these company plans for homes within one-half-mile of a coal ash impoundment. Final approval is contingent on state health and environmental departments certifying that water provided via these systems meets “applicable” or “appropriate” standards for each location.

Now activists say Duke and other companies should move millions of tons of ash from multiple depositories. Not only would that involve hundreds of thousands of dump truck loads, millions of gallons of fuel, and huge trucks lumbering through towns and along back roads and highways. A far more basic question is: Take it where, exactly? Who would want it? Activists certainly offer no viable alternatives.

Companies previously proposed turning fly ash into cement blocks or gravel, for construction projects. Activists quickly nixed that option, even though it would involve virtually no contamination risks. It’s becoming increasingly apparent that the real reason for all the vocal consternation is that these agitators simply want to drive coal out of business. Indeed, the same unaccountable, silver-tongued agitators also detest natural gas-generated electricity … and drilling and fracking to produce the gas. They oppose nuclear energy, and even want hydroelectric dams and power plants removed. They claim to support wind and solar, by conveniently ignoring the huge downsides pointed out here, here, here, here and elsewhere.

Forcing utility companies to spend billions relocating huge ash deposits to “lined, watertight landfills” (in someone else’s backyard) will bring no health or environmental benefits. But it will bankrupt companies, send electricity prices soaring, and hurt poor, minority and working class families the most.

If rates double from current costs in coal-reliant states like North Carolina and Virginia (9 cents per kilowatt-hour or less) to those in anti-coal New York or Connecticut (17 cents), families will have to pay $500-1,000 more annually for electricity. Hospitals, school districts, factories and businesses will have to spend additional thousands, tens of thousands or millions. Where will that money come from?

Virginia’s 665,000-square-foot Inova Fairfax Women’s and Children’s Hospital pays about $1,850,000 per year for electricity at 9 cents/kWh, but would pay $3,500,000 at 17 cents: a $1.6-million difference.

Will businesses have to lay off dozens or hundreds of employees, or close their doors? If they pass costs on to patients or customers, where will families find the extra cash? What will the poorest families do?

The war on coal, petroleum, nuclear and hydroelectric power is a callous, eco-imperialist war on reliable, affordable electricity, on jobs, and on poor and minority families. Policies that drive energy prices up drive people out of jobs, drive companies out of business, drive families into green-energy poverty.

Preventing ruptures and spills means selecting, building and maintaining the best possible ash landfill facilities. Safeguarding public water and health means properly addressing actual, proven toxicity risks.

The US Environmental Protection Agency and North Carolina set allowable Cr-6 limits at 100 ppb for drinking water (equivalent to 100 seconds in 33 years or 4 cups in 660,000 gallons of water). The state also applies a 10 ppb standard for well water. No one applies a 0.07 ppb standard (70 parts per trillion).

In 2015, the NCDEQ tested 24 wells two to five miles from the nearest coal plant or coal ash deposit; 20 had Cr-6 levels above 0.07 ppb but far below 100 ppb, underscoring its diverse origins. May 2016 tests could not even detect the chemical in Greensboro water, the News & Record reported.

A 2016 Duke University study found that hexavalent chromium is prevalent in many North Carolina surface and ground waters. Some comes from coal ash deposits, but much is leached from igneous and other rocks found throughout the Piedmont region of Virginia, the Carolinas and Georgia. Other health experts note that Cr-6 is found in 70% to 90% of all water supplies in the United States. Applying a 0.07 ppb would mean telling hundreds of millions of Americans not to drink their water!

Moreover, studies have found that Cr-6 in water is safe even at 100 ppb or higher. A 2012 paper in the Journal of Applied Toxicology concluded that regularly drinking water with 210 ppb of Cr-6 poses no health risks. (The real health problems involve airborne Cr-6.) Journal of Occupational and Environmental Medicine, US EPA and other studies buttress those findings.

Equally important, an ability to detect a substance does not mean it poses a risk. Cancer is certainly scary, but the risk of getting cancer is not the same as dying from it. And people routinely accept risks of dying from activities they happily engage in daily. For example, the National Safety Council puts the lifetime risk of dying in a motor vehicle crash at 1 in 113; that’s 8,850 times greater than the alleged lifetime risk of contracting cancer from 0.07 ppb Cr-6 in water. Drinking and smoking fall into the same category.

However, all too many people seem easily terrified by “detectable” levels of strange-sounding chemicals. 100% clean is not necessary, not possible, not found in nature and not a sound basis for public policy.

Coal and chemical controversies like these offer our nation, states and communities excellent opportunities to find novel solutions that recognize sound science, hidden agendas, often limited options, and undesirable repercussions of poorly informed policy decisions. Let’s hope they are up to the task.


Paul Driessen is senior policy analyst for the Committee For A Constructive Tomorrow (www.CFACT.org), and author of Eco-Imperialism: Green power – Black death and other books on the environment.

0 0 votes
Article Rating

Discover more from Watts Up With That?

Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.

70 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
James Bull
March 22, 2017 12:38 pm

This is the same EPA that released thousands of gallons of highly contaminated water from an old mine and said it wasn’t a problem and there was nothing to worry about.

James Bull

Gary Pearse
Reply to  James Bull
March 22, 2017 1:55 pm

They may be right about that. This was a good test case to see what lasting harm the stupidity of the ‘remediation’ of mine seepage did.

Gary Pearse
March 22, 2017 1:51 pm

Maybe it was right the right call to disband the EPA entirely and leave it to the states, regardless that it did some good in the early days. It morphed into a tool that has nothing to do with the environment.

Speaking of parts per trillion. Lining up dollar bills to cover the national debt. Would reach the sun and half way back. One buck at ~15cm in length is one trillionth the way to the sun.

Svend Ferdinandsen
March 22, 2017 3:13 pm

“Equally important, an ability to detect a substance does not mean it poses a risk”
It is becoming more important than ever as the equipment gets more and more sensitive.
I have now with my newest equipment seen a toxic subtance that i have never seen before. Big headlines and a lot of the harm it could do if consumed in 1000 or more parts than found.
Even sea water contains so much Uran, that some concider to harvest it. Do you dare to swim again in the sea?
Those scientists should be more humble, and wait to reveal their findings untill they also know that it is harmfull. It is not enough that they have sen it and fear/expect, that it could maybe posess a risk in some circumstances.
What are scientists for, if not for quantifying the eventually perceived risks.
In fact you will find all the known substances of the periodic system and combinations in sea water.

Retired Kit P
March 22, 2017 9:20 pm

On my way home from a TVA nuke site, I went by the location of the Kingston coal ash spill after the cleanup was complete. What a beautiful place!

While I was doing work for TVA, I go the same info about safety and the environment yas TVA employees. The cost of the ash cleanup was greater than TMI.

There is risk in everything.

CommonA
March 23, 2017 1:07 am

I understand that “pure” or distilled water (nothing but H2O) is actually quite bad for you…. Our water filter has a re-mineralizer for exactly that reason…. Are there standards for *minimum* levels of Calcium, Iron and other organic compounds in our water? Or could water companies pipe pure H2O to the unsuspecting consumer?

2hotel9
March 23, 2017 3:42 am

My question is, and has been for a long time, why has coal ash been banned for use in concrete and pavement manufacture? And thanks to damned work I see I am way late in this thread! 🙂 And thanks to stupid cows I am about ready to go back to bed.

Coal ash/cinder used to be used in a lot of different things, not just de-icing roads. EPA arbitrarily ended that practice because coal ash is dust contaminate, never mind once it is in a solid product it, well, is no longer dust. A simple physical fact the stuporgeniuses at EPA are clearly too stupid to figure out.

Jeff Alberts
March 23, 2017 5:09 pm

Here in Western Washington State, recent scares were all about coal dust from coal trains passing through the area. If you believed the alarmists, everyone in the region would end up with Black Lung.

2hotel9
Reply to  Jeff Alberts
March 24, 2017 5:23 am

Seems they missed out on an excellent business opportunity, retro fitting coal hopper cars with retractable covers. No wonder they clamor for a universal welfare state.

Jeff Alberts
Reply to  2hotel9
March 26, 2017 10:38 am

Doesn’t matter. Once you solve the first non-problem, 10 more non-problems crop up.

2hotel9
Reply to  Jeff Alberts
March 26, 2017 5:35 pm

I know! And each one is a money making opportunity. Which is why leftards endlessly screech without end for a total welfare state, they don’t know how to make money, only steal it from real human beings.

sophocles
March 23, 2017 11:45 pm

The activists in question seem to have forgotten that human life is a fatal sexually transmitted disease of varying virulence; ie, it takes out some a bit earlier than others and others a bit later. But nobody, nobody ever survives it.

2hotel9
Reply to  sophocles
March 24, 2017 5:21 am

Nobody makes it out of life alive.

Reply to  2hotel9
March 24, 2017 8:01 am

Birth and death are tricks of nature which is a-moral. Things happen simply because it “works”. Conversion is more difficult then building something new. Life exists because it was able to adapt to earth conditions.

2hotel9
Reply to  David
March 24, 2017 6:17 pm

“Conversion is more difficult then building something new” Yes. I do a lot of remodeling.

catweazle666
March 24, 2017 4:03 pm

“That’s 8,850 times greater than the alleged lifetime risk of contracting cancer from 0.07 parts per billion of hexavalent chromium (Cr-6) in water.”

That will be a result of the dreaded ‘Linear No Threshold’ model, whereby if a substance X is a risk at a concentration Y to a fraction Z of the population then even homeopathic levels of concentration of X will be harmful to a fraction of Z.

Hence, there are practically no substances whatsoever that are excluded from risk, which produces open-ended scope for producing regulations concerning the aforesaid substances and an exponentially increasing number of employees to ensure those regulations are enforced.

This new form of BS looks like the replacement for the rapidly failing AGW BS.