Ash pond

An ash pond, also called a coal ash basin or surface impoundment,[1] is an engineered structure used at coal-fired power stations for the disposal of two types of coal combustion products: bottom ash and fly ash. The pond is used as a landfill to prevent the release of ash into the atmosphere. Although the use of ash ponds in combination with air pollution controls (such as wet scrubbers) decreases the amount of airborne pollutants, the structures pose serious health risks for the surrounding environment.[2]

A coal-fired power plant with surface impoundments

Ash ponds use gravity to settle out large particulates (measured as total suspended solids) from power plant wastewater. This technology does not treat dissolved pollutants.[3] The ponds generally have not been built as lined landfills, and therefore chemicals in the ash can leach into groundwater and surface waters, accumulating in the biomass of the system.[4][5][6]

Design

Ash ponds are generally formed using a ring embankment to enclose the disposal site. The embankments are designed using similar design parameters as embankment dams, including zoned construction with clay cores. The design process is primarily focused on handling seepage and ensuring slope stability.

Failure of a pond's earthen embankment can cause ash spills on adjacent land and rivers, with serious environmental damage, as evidenced in the 2008 Kingston Fossil Plant spill in Tennessee[7] and the 2014 Dan River coal ash spill in North Carolina.[8]

Disposal methods

The wet disposal of ash into ash ponds is the most common ash disposal method,[9] but other methods include dry disposal in landfills. Dry-handled ash is often recycled into useful building materials. Wet disposal has been preferred due to economic reasons, but increasing environmental concerns regarding leachate from ponds has decreased the popularity of wet disposal.[9] The wet method consists of constructing a large "pond" and filling it with fly ash slurry, allowing the water to drain and evaporate from the fly ash over time.[10]

The flow of water through the fly ash and into ground water is controlled by using low-permeability clay layers and cutoff trenches/walls. Low-permeability clays have permeability on the order of 10−7 cm/s. Vertical flows through the foundation are controlled by siting fly ash ponds on areas of thick clay or rock layers that provide suitably low permeability through the base of the pond. Areas with high sub-surface permeability can be improved by importing suitable clay. Horizontal flows through the embankment are controlled using clay zones within the embankment. Cut off trenches and cut off walls are used to connect the embankment clay zones and the foundation clay layers. Cut off trenches are trenches that are dug into the selected low-permeability sub-surface layer and backfilled with clay to key the embankment clay zone into the sub-surface. Cut off trenches are generally used when the low permeability foundation layer(s) are near surface. Cut off walls are similar to cut off trenches, but are generally much deeper and narrower, and use either slurry or grout instead of clay.

Health and environmental impacts

Not all substances present in coal will burn, and hence the non-combustible material is present in more concentrated amounts in coal ash than in coal itself. Substances commonly found in coal ash include arsenic, barium, beryllium, boron, cadmium, nickel, lead, mercury, molybdenum, selenium and thallium. Elevated levels of radioactivity may also be present.[11] Many of these substances, especially heavy metals, can have negative effects on humans when ingested. Because of biomagnification, the concentration of unwanted chemicals in animals can increase up a food chain (similarly to mercury in tuna). Coal ash, a product of combustion, concentrates these elements and can contaminate groundwater or surface waters if there are leaks from an ash pond.[12]

Countries

Australia

Coal ash accounts for almost one-fifth of the waste generated in Australia. There are no national regulations requiring recycling of coal ash.[13] About 47% of coal ash was recycled in 2020.[14] Coal ash in New South Wales is typically stored in landfills ("dry emplacements") or ash ponds ("ash dams").[15] Coal ash storage is regulated by the state Environment Protection Authority and its Dams Safety Committee, which publishes standards for dam design and environmental monitoring.[16]

Netherlands

Ash ponds are not allowed in the Netherlands, as they are a type of landfill. Instead, all coal ash is recycled in the Netherlands.[17]

Turkey
See also: Coal power in Turkey § Ash

In 2021 inspections were criticized and said to be insufficient.[18]: 75 

United States

In the United States, coal ash is a major component of the nation's industrial waste stream.[19] As of 2012 approximately 60 percent of US coal ash was disposed in surface impoundments and landfills. The US had 310 active on-site landfills in 2012, averaging more than 120 acres in size with an average depth of over 40 feet, and more than 735 active on-site surface impoundments, averaging more than 50 acres in size with an average depth of 20 feet.[20] In 2017, 38.2 million short tons (34.7×10^6 t) of fly ash, and 9.7 million short tons (8.8×10^6 t) of bottom ash were generated.[21]

A 2019 report by the Environmental Integrity Project states that for U.S. coal-fired plants with available monitoring data, 91 percent of them have contaminated groundwater with "unsafe levels of toxic pollutants."[22]

In 2018 an environmental justice advisor to the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) stated that the increased toxic exposures from ash ponds will have disproportionate adverse health effects on low-income and minority communities.[23]

Historically, due to few federal and state regulations concerning ash ponds, most US power plants do not use geomembranes, leachate collection systems, or other flow controls often found in municipal solid waste landfills.[10] In 1980 the U.S. Congress defined coal ash as a "special waste" that would not be regulated under the stringent hazardous waste permitting requirements of the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA).[24] Congress also directed EPA to study the coal ash problem and decide whether further regulation would be appropriate. In 2000, EPA stated that coal fly ash did not need to be regulated as a hazardous waste.[25][26]

Following a 2008 failure that caused the Tennessee Valley Authority's Kingston Fossil Plant coal fly ash slurry spill, EPA began developing regulations that would apply to all ash ponds in the US. EPA published a Coal Combustion Residuals (CCR) regulation in 2015. The agency continued to classify coal ash as non-hazardous (thereby avoiding strict permitting requirements under RCRA Subtitle C), but with new restrictions:

  1. Existing ash ponds that are contaminating groundwater must stop receiving CCR, and close or retrofit with a liner.
  2. Existing ash ponds and landfills must comply with structural and location restrictions, where applicable, or close.
  3. A pond no longer receiving CCR is still subject to all regulations unless it is dewatered and covered by 2018.
  4. New ponds and landfills must include a geomembrane liner over a layer of compacted soil.[27]

Some of the provisions in the 2015 CCR regulation were challenged in litigation, and the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit remanded certain portions of the regulation to EPA for further rulemaking.[28]

EPA also published an effluent guidelines (wastewater) regulation in 2015 pursuant to the Clean Water Act.[29] The regulation limits discharges of toxic metals from power plants, including ash ponds and other wastestreams. The Agency estimated that the regulation would reduce the industry's metals discharges of 1.4 billion pounds annually.[30] In October 2020 EPA published a final rule that reverses some provisions of the 2015 wastewater regulation. The revised regulation extends the compliance deadline for some power plants, and exempts some others completely from the more stringent 2015 requirements.[31][32] The 2020 rule has been challenged in litigation.[33] In March 2023 EPA published a proposed rule that would reverse some aspects of the 2020 rule and tighten the wastewater limitations for some facilities.[34]

EPA published a proposed RCRA rule on August 14, 2019 that would use location-based criteria, rather than a numerical threshold (i.e. impoundment or landfill size) that would require an operator to demonstrate minimal environmental impact so that a site could remain in operation.[35]

Following a court remand, EPA published its "CCR Part A" final rule on August 28, 2020 requiring all unlined ash ponds to retrofit with liners or close by April 11, 2021. Some facilities may apply to obtain additional time—up to 2028—to find alternatives for managing ash wastes before closing their surface impoundments.[36][37][38] EPA published its ""CCR Part B" rule on November 12, 2020, which allows certain facilities to use an alternative liner, based on a demonstration that human health and the environment will not be affected.[39] Further litigation on the CCR regulation is pending as of 2021.[40]

On January 11, 2022 EPA announced an enforcement action involving ash ponds at certain coal-fired plants in Indiana, Ohio, Iowa and New York. The agency's proposal would deny the plants' requests for extensions beyond the 2021 deadline and would require them to close their ash ponds ahead of their proposed schedules. EPA sent warning letters to four additional plants. EPA's action is subject to a 30-day public comment period.[41][42]

Remediation

Remediation options include "capping, dewatering and/or stabilizing, consolidating into a new landfill, disposing off site, converting to wetlands, or any combination of these options."[43]

There are some initiatives, such as a 2015 initiative by Duke Energy, to excavate existing ash ponds to reduce the environmental effects of coal-burning power facilities on the surrounding environment.[44][45]

See also

References
  1. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), Washington, D.C. "Hazardous and Solid Waste Management System; Identification and Listing of Special Wastes; Disposal of Coal Combustion Residuals from Electric Utilities." Proposed rule. Federal Register, 75 FR 35130, June 21, 2010.
  2. Erickson, Camille (October 7, 2019). "Mixing water, Powder River Basin coal ash dangerous to human health, new research finds". Casper Star-Tribune. Casper, WY.
  3. "Effluent Limitations Guidelines and Standards for the Steam Electric Power Generating Point Source Category". EPA. 2018-11-30.
  4. Brooke, Nelson (June 5, 2019). "New Interactive Maps of Groundwater Pollution Reveal Threats Posed by Alabama Power Coal Ash Pits". Black Warrior Riverkeeper. Birmingham, AL.
  5. Springer, Patrick (March 13, 2019). "Report: Unsafe coal ash contamination found in North Dakota groundwater". Bismarck Tribune. Bismarck, ND.
  6. Tosheff, Taylor (2019-07-31). "York: Brunner Island power plant owners agree to $1M penalty, coal ash cleanup". Harrisburg, PA: ABC27 News.
  7. Dewan, Sheila (2008-12-23). "Water Supplies Tested After Tennessee Spill". The New York Times.
  8. "Case Summary: Duke Energy Agrees to $3 Million Cleanup for Coal Ash Release in the Dan River". Enforcement. EPA. 2017-03-15.
  9. McLaren, R. J. & A. M. DiGioia (1987). "The Typical Engineering Properties of Fly Ash". In Woods, R. D. (ed.). Geotechnical Practice for Waste Disposal. Reston, VA: American Society of Civil Engineers.
  10. Kessler, K. A. (1981). "Wet Disposal of Fossil Plant Waste Case History". Journal of the Energy Division. American Society of Civil Engineers. 107 (2): 199–208. doi:10.1061/JDAEDZ.0000063.
  11. Walton, Robert (March 5, 2018). "Utilities find groundwater contamination, radioactivity at unlined coal ash sites". Utility Dive. Washington, D.C.: Industry Dive, Inc.
  12. Schlossberg, Tatiana (2017-04-15). "2 Tennessee Cases Bring Coal's Hidden Hazard to Light". The New York Times.
  13. Millington, Ben (2019-03-09). "Coal ash has become one of Australia's biggest waste problems — and a solution is being ignored". ABC (Australian Broadcasting Corporation) News. Newcastle, NSW.
  14. National Waste Report 2020 (PDF) (Report). Docklands, Victoria: Australia Department of Agriculture, Water and the Environment. 2020-11-04. p. 36.
  15. "Coal ash dams". Sydney NSW: Environment Protection Authority, New South Wales (EPA/NSW). 2021-09-21.
  16. Environment Compliance Report: Coal ash dams and emplacements (PDF) (Report). EPA/NSW. June 2017. ISBN 978-1-76039-808-8. EPA20170276.
  17. "Best practices for managing power plant coal ash". www.powerengineeringint.com. Retrieved 2019-06-17.
  18. Çaltı, Nuray; Bozoğlu, Baran; Aldırmaz, Ahmet Turan; Atalar, Gülşah Deniz (2 June 2021). Özelleştirilmiş Termik Santraller ve Çevre Mevzuatına Uyum Süreçleri [Privatized Thermal Power Plants and Environmental Legislation Compliance Processes] (Report) (in Turkish). İklim Değişikliği Politika ve Araştırma Derneği. Archived from the original on 9 October 2021. Retrieved 27 July 2021.
  19. "Coal Ash Basics". EPA. 2021-01-25.
  20. "Frequent Questions about the 2015 Coal Ash Disposal Rule". EPA. 2021-10-13.
  21. 2017 Coal Combustion Product Production & Use Survey Report (PDF) (Report). Farmington Hills, MI: American Coal Ash Association. 2018. Archived from the original (PDF) on 2019-05-07. Retrieved 2019-05-19.
  22. "Coal's Poisonous Legacy". Washington, D.C.: Environmental Integrity Project. 2019-03-04.
  23. McKenna, Phil (2018-03-15). "EPA Environmental Justice Adviser Slams Pruitt's Plan to Weaken Coal Ash Rules". New York: Inside Climate News.
  24. "Special Wastes". Hazardous Waste. EPA. 2021-07-06.
  25. EPA (2000-05-22). "Notice of Regulatory Determination on Wastes From the Combustion of Fossil Fuels." Federal Register, 65 FR 32214.
  26. Luther, Linda (2013-08-06). Background on and Implementation of the Bevill and Bentsen Exclusions in the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act: EPA Authorities to Regulate "Special Wastes" (Report). Washington, D.C.: U.S. Congressional Research Service. R43149.
  27. EPA. "Hazardous and Solid Waste Management System; Disposal of Coal Combustion Residuals From Electric Utilities." 80 FR 21301, 2015-04-17.
  28. Green, Douglas H.; Houlihan, Michael (2019-04-24). "D.C. Circuit Court Remands CCR Deadline Extension to EPA". Environment, Energy, and Resources Section. Washington, DC: American Bar Association.
  29. EPA. "Effluent Limitations Guidelines and Standards for the Steam Electric Power Generating Point Source Category." 80 FR 67837. 2015-11-03.
  30. "Steam Electric Power Generating Effluent Guidelines—2015 Final Rule". EPA. 2020-09-04.
  31. Dennis, Brady; Eilperin, Juliet (2020-08-31). "Trump administration rolls back Obama-era rule aimed at limiting toxic wastewater from coal plants". The Washington Post.
  32. EPA (2020-10-13). "Steam Electric Reconsideration Rule." Final rule. Federal Register, 85 FR 64650
  33. "Environmental Groups File Lawsuits Against Trump Administration for Toxic Water Pollution Rollbacks". New York, NY: Waterkeeper Alliance. 2020-11-02.
  34. EPA (2023-03-29). "Supplemental Effluent Limitations Guidelines and Standards for the Steam Electric Power Generating Point Source Category." Proposed rule. 88 FR 18824
  35. EPA. "Hazardous and Solid Waste Management System: Disposal of Coal Combustion Residuals from Electric Utilities; Enhancing Public Access to Information; Reconsideration of Beneficial Use Criteria and Piles; Proposed Rule." Federal Register, 84 FR 40353. 2019-08-14.
  36. "EPA Letting Some Hazardous Coal Ash Ponds Stay Open Longer". U.S. News. 2020-10-16.
  37. EPA. "Hazardous and Solid Waste Management System: Disposal of Coal Combustion Residuals From Electric Utilities; A Holistic Approach to Closure Part A: Deadline To Initiate Closure." 85 FR 53516. 2020-08-28.
  38. "Revisions to the Coal Combustion Residuals (CCR) Closure Regulations; Fact sheet". EPA. July 2020.
  39. EPA (2020-11-12). "Hazardous and Solid Waste Management System: Disposal of CCR; A Holistic Approach to Closure Part B: Alternate Demonstration for Unlined Surface Impoundments." Final rule. 85 FR 72506
  40. Smoot, D.E. (2020-12-11). "Groups challenge rollback of coal ash rule". Muskogee Phoenix. Muskogee, OK.
  41. Daly, Matthew (2022-01-11). "EPA moves to crack down on dangerous coal ash storage ponds". The Washington Post.
  42. "EPA Takes Key Steps to Protect Groundwater from Coal Ash Contamination". EPA. 2022-01-11. Press release.
  43. Johnson, Mark; Nillson, Kent (2014-12-01). "Construction Considerations Are Key in Closure Planning for Coal Ash Ponds". Power Magazine. Rockville, MD: Access Intelligence, LLC.
  44. "Coal Ash". Charlotte, NC: Catawba Riverkeeper Foundation. Archived from the original on 2017-03-03. Retrieved 2020-02-22.
  45. "Ash Management & Safe Basin Closure". Charlotte, NC: Duke Energy.
This article is issued from Wikipedia. The text is licensed under Creative Commons - Attribution - Sharealike. Additional terms may apply for the media files.