waste_disposal_landfill
Even when it's sitting in storage, coal threatens human health.
Coal stockpiles emit fine particulate pollution in several ways.
President Trump and his appointees have pledged to end what they call the “war on coal” – policies designed to reduce the health and environmental impacts from producing and burning coal, such as toxic air pollution and mine waste disposal in streams. But while it is true that coal production and use in the United States is subject to many long-standing regulations, they exist for good reason.
Burning coal generates air pollutants that cause thousands of premature deaths and hospitalizations every year. Coal mining, especially mountaintop mining, has been linked to increased exposure to toxic pollutants, increased morbidity and mortality, and adverse impacts on mental health for people living nearby.
In a recent study, Nicholas Muller and I uncovered a source of air pollution from coal that has not received much policy scrutiny: the storage and handling of coal piles. We found that wind blowing over uncovered coal piles at U.S. power plants plus gaseous emissions from the piles significantly increased concentrations of airborne fine particulates within 25 miles of these plants. Our findings suggest that this dimension of coal use should be regulated as well.
Pollution from shipping, handling and storage
For this study, we linked monthly data on the amount of coal stored on-site at each of 236 coal-fired power plants across the United States to measurements from nearby air quality monitors. These devices measure fine particulate pollution – termed PM2.5 because the particles are less than 2.5 micrometers in diameter. To put this in perspective, PM2.5 particles are about 30 times thinner than a strand of hair. By linking changes in coal stockpiles to changes in PM2.5 at nearby monitors, we were able to estimate how much particulate matter is generated per ton of coal stored.
Coal stockpiles emit fine particulate pollution in several ways. First, wind blowing over uncovered coal stockpiles results in fugitive coal dust emissions that are a source of PM2.5. Second, coal stockpiles emit volatile gases that can also lead to formation of PM2.5. Finally, when coal is delivered to a power plant, it goes through a lot of handling, including unloading, separating “light dust” from the coal and crushing the coal to make it suitable for burning. These processes all generate fine particulates.
Coal is also stored on-site at mines and coal export terminals, and roughly 67 percent of it is delivered by train, typically in uncovered freight cars. Barges and trucks carrying coal are also typically uncovered. Though our analysis focused on areas around coal-fired power plants, people living near mines, rail lines or coal export terminals are also likely to experience increases in fine particulate pollution from coal storage and handling.
Major local impacts
Exposure to fine particulate pollution has been linked to increased deaths and illnesses due to cardiovascular and respiratory conditions. Economists often are asked to place a dollar value on this pollution-induced increase in mortality rates. To do this, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) assigns a monetary value to a “statistical life.” The agency typically uses this “value of statistical life” approach to quantify the benefits of the environmental regulations that reduce local air pollution.
For example, in 1990, Congress amended the Clean Air Act to limit emissions of sulfur dioxide and nitrogen oxides, which are major sources of fine particulates. The EPA estimates that these limits will prevent roughly 230,000 adult deaths due to fine particles just in the year 2020. Using a value of US$9.85 million per statistical life, this translates into $2.3 trillion in total benefits in 2020 just from reduced mortality from particles. Overall, EPA calculates that the total benefits from the 1990 Clean Air Act Amendments from 1990 through 2020 exceed the costs of complying with the law by a factor of more than 30 to 1.
Using this same approach, our findings indicate that in addition to the social costs of particulate pollution from burning coal, storage and handling creates PM2.5 pollution that generates additional local health costs of about $183 per ton of coal stored. For context, the average power plant pays roughly $48 per ton for coal, stores roughly 213,000 tons of coal on-site and receives deliveries of roughly 106,000 tons of coal per month.
Communities push back
The coal industry is subject to many environmental regulations. There are laws and rules that address the impacts of current mining operations and abandoned mine sites; air pollution from coal combustion; and disposal of the ash left over after coal is burned.
In contrast, there is no federal legislation explicitly targeting fine particulate emissions from coal storage and handling. However, since this air pollution is quite local, cities and counties can take action to mitigate it instead of relying on state or federal policy.
For example, companies have been seeking permission to build coal export terminals on the Pacific coast for several years. In 2016, Oakland, California banned large-scale transportation of coal through its ports, due in part to concerns over the health impacts of coal dust. Local opponents blocked a proposed terminal in Bellingham, Washington, and are hotly contesting another in Longview.
A relatively low-cost solution would be to simply require railroad companies to cover train cars carrying coal and electricity generation companies to cover coal piles. I’ve heard three objections to this idea from industry:
Coal sitting in enclosed train cars may have a higher risk of combustion.
Covering train cars increases drag, which will slow trains down and increase fuel costs.
Operators would have to change the automated process by which coal is dumped into trains at mines, transported to power plants and handled at the plants.
However, based on the significant levels of local air pollution from coal storage and handling that we have documented in our study, we believe that policymakers should at least explore the costs and benefits of requiring coal piles to be covered. Opponents of the alleged war on coal often assert that environmental regulations harm the economically disadvantaged communities where coal production occurs. In this case, however, for the disproportionately poor and minority communities who live near coal-burning power plants, our view is that more regulation, rather than less, may be required.
Author
Akshaya Jha
Assistant Professor of Economics and Public Policy, Carnegie Mellon University
Keep reading...Show less
EPA sends people, planes to gauge pollution from Texas storm.
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency said on Wednesday it has sent people and airplanes to assess pollution in areas hit by Tropical Storm Harvey, as concerns mount over leaks and spills from the Texas oil industry and Superfund sites.
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency said on Wednesday it has sent people and airplanes to assess pollution in areas hit by Tropical Storm Harvey, as concerns mount over leaks and spills from the Texas oil industry and Superfund sites.
Harvey slammed the state's Gulf Coast on Friday as a powerful hurricane and has since dumped record rainfall in the Houston area. The region is home to scores of huge petrochemicals facilities along with dozens of heavily polluted Superfund sites, many of which have been flooded.
The EPA said it sent emergency management specialists and reconnaissance teams to the state and would inspect two high priority Superfund sites near Corpus Christi - close to where Harvey first made landfall - on Wednesday.
Superfund sites are land determined by the EPA to be contaminated with hazardous waste in need of cleanup because they pose a risk to human health or the environment.
The EPA has listed two oil waste disposal pits formerly owned by the Brine Service Company in Corpus Christi on the Superfund priorities list. The pits, 6.5 miles outside of downtown, contain drilling fluids and refinery wastes dating to the 1940s.
Many of the state's other Superfund sites affected by the storm are still inaccessible due to high water. In Harris County, home to Houston, there are 15 Superfund sites.
Flooding from Harvey also has triggered a handful of spills and releases from petrochemical facilities in Texas, according to reports filed by companies with the Texas Commission for Environmental Quality.
That includes more than 12,000 pounds of volatile organic compounds from Exxon Mobil’s massive Baytown refinery when rainwater sank a storage tank’s floating roof.
The EPA team will work with the Federal Emergency Management Agency, TCEQ, the Coast Guard and the Texas General Land Office in its work, according to the release.
"EPA continues to support TCEQ in contacting drinking water and waste water systems and will visit two systems based on information garnered," it said.
"In addition, EPA’s aerial assessment aircraft will conduct aerial reconnaissance over the impacted area, as weather permits," it said.
Keep reading...Show less
Why flooding in Nigeria is an increasingly serious problem.
Rainstorms are getting more intense, sea levels are rising and infrastructure can't cope.
Earlier this year heavy rains and thunderstorms caused havoc in Lagos, Nigeria’s economic nerve centre and one of Africa’s most populous cities. Residents woke up in many parts of the city to find their streets and homes flooded and their property, including cars and other valuables, submerged.
Pictures and videos later posted online showed dramatic and even bizarre scenes of flooding in the city, including the capture of a crocodile in the floodwater. Another video, which went viral, was one of a man kayaking in floodwater on one of the streets.
Lagos has not been alone. Suleija, a town near the capital city Abuja hundreds of kilometres away, suffered its own flooding challenge in early July. Heavy rains washed houses away and caused others to collapse, trapping occupants. Thirteen people were reported to have died.
Some of the worst flooding in recent memory happened five years ago in March 2012 when 32 of Nigeria’s 36 states were affected, 24 severely. More than 360 people were killed and almost 2 million people were displaced.
The seriousness of the flooding was attributed to a combination of two events: very heavy local rainfall and the release of excess water from the Lagdo Dam in nearby Cameroon.
Although the degree and seriousness of flooding in Nigeria fluctuates, flooding remains a recurring phenomenon in most parts of the country. The first factor aggravating flooding is climate change, which has been shown to contribute to more extreme storms and rainfall. Another factor contributing to flooding in cities is that Nigeria has experienced rapid urban growth and planning is poor.
The problem of flooding is not peculiar to Nigeria alone. In 2007, floods affected 1.5 million people across several countries in Africa, including Uganda, Sudan, Kenya, Ghana, Ethiopia and Niger. Alluvial flooding is common for major rivers - such as Nile, Niger, Benue, Orange, Zambezi - in Africa. Major cities in Africa are also susceptible to fluvial flooding which occurs when excessive rainfall, over an extended period of time, causes rivers to overflow.
Why Nigeria suffers
Rainfall patterns in Nigeria (1978 to 2007) suggests that rainstorms are getting more intense. The data show that there are fewer rainy days, yet the total yearly amounts of rainfall have not changed much from previous decades. This means that more rain is falling on the days that there is rain, which in turn means that rain storms in the city are getting more intense, increasing the threat of flooding.
In addition to more intense rain storms, the other possible cause of flooding in coastal regions is rising sea levels. Although up-to-date data on the rising sea levels in Nigeria are scarce, it’s believed that if nothing is done, this is likely to aggravate flooding in the future, particularly in coastal cities.
Areas at risk include Lagos, which is on the coast, as well as the Niger Delta region which has many low-lying towns and villages. Being on the coast also makes these places more susceptible to storm surges. While these areas are no stranger to floods, evidence suggests that floods have become increasingly common and intense in recent times.
In the northern parts of the country, heavy rains are likely to cause rivers to overflow their banks and cause flooding in the adjoining states. The changes in rainfall patterns, particularly in frequency and intensity, have meant that these events have begun to happen more frequently.
In Nigeria’s cities, the most common cause of flooding after excessive rains is poor drainage systems that can’t cope. This is called pluvial flooding. Lagos provides a good case study.
Lagos as a case study
Lagos has been urbanising rapidly. By some estimates there will be 19 million in the city by 2050, making it the 11th most populous city in the world. It is also home to most of the country’s industrial, commercial and non-oil operations.
Urbanisation and industrialisation increase the number of roads and buildings. This in turn increases the proportion of surface area where water cannot be absorbed into the ground, leading to rapid runoff which then causes flooding during storms. And in cities that manage their infrastructure well, storm water drainage systems are built so that water can be directed to rivers efficiently and quickly.
Lagos has not kept up with its infrastructure needs. The growth and expansion of the city has been largely unregulated. The has resulted in inadequate and poor housing, the development of slum areas and inadequate water supply and waste disposal, among other problems.
What’s complicated the situation for Lagos is that many parts of the city were originally low-lying mangrove swamps and wetlands, which have been reclaimed and settled, mostly by poorer communities and more recently through concerted efforts by the government.
These low-lying areas are particularly at risk of flooding, and the situation is complicated by buildings being constructed on water ways, and bad waste dumping habits which block the drains.
70% of the population of Lagos live in slums, with the density of people being as much as 120,000 people per square kilometre. (The average population density of New York City is 10,384 people per square kilometre.)
What must be done
It’s clear Nigeria needs to take measures to cope with flooding. This will require both local and international interventions, and could include early warning and rapid response systems, flood data gathering and modelling, proper urban and spatial planning, flood emergency preparedness and political will.
The country can learn from others. For example, in Mumbai, India various measures have been implemented to reduce the impact of flooding. These have included an emergency control centre, automated weather stations, removal of solid waste from stormwater drains and the development of emergency response mechanisms. Nigeria must invest in these measures, and sustain them.
Disclosure statement
Andrew Slaughter receives funding from the Water Research Commission.
Nelson Odume receives funding from the Water Research Commission, National Research Foundation, EU-Funded AfriAlliance Project, Rhodes University Council Grant. He/she is affiliated with KuwashaAfrica, Lugaju Innovation.
Keep reading...Show less
Fugitive sought for dumping radioactive oilfield waste.
A fugitive who escaped custody in Wyoming four years ago has been added to a list of U.S. environmental crimes fugitives and is being sought by investigators for illegally dumping radioactive oilfield waste in North Dakota in incidents dating back to 2011, authorities said Tuesday.
BILLINGS, Mont. (AP) — A fugitive who escaped custody in Wyoming four years ago has been added to a list of U.S. environmental crimes fugitives and is being sought by investigators for illegally dumping radioactive oilfield waste in North Dakota in incidents dating back to 2011, authorities said Tuesday.
James Kenneth Ward, 55, is considered violent and dangerous and should not be approached, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's Criminal Investigation Division said in a statement.
Prosecutors said Ward beginning in 2011 illegally disposed of hundreds of pieces of radioactive oil field waste known as filter socks, which are used to strain the sometimes-radioactive fluids produced during oil and gas exploration. Filter socks are tubular nets used to strain polluted water that is a byproduct of oil production. The wastewater contains low amounts of radioactive material such as radium.
Instead of bringing the filter socks to a licensed landfill, prosecutors allege Ward dumped them inside an abandoned gas station just south of the Canada border in Noonan, North Dakota, where they were discovered in March 2014a. The site was later cleaned up and the filters were transferred out of state for disposal.
EPA spokesman Richard Mylott did not directly respond to email and telephone messages seeking comment about why Ward was considered dangerous and why he had been added to the fugitive list three years after he was linked to the illegal dumping. Instead, he provided a copy of an indictment for Ward that did not answer those questions.
North Dakota state health officials several years ago reported finding the filters along roadsides, in abandoned buildings and in commercial trash bins. Authorities discovered a second major illegal dumping site for the filters in the nearby small North Dakota city of Crosby about two months after the Noonan site was found.
The cases highlighted the state's struggles to deal with the environmental effects of an energy boom that has since slowed after oil prices plummeted.
In response, industry regulators now require oil and gas companies to have waste disposal containers on site at drilling pads or disposal wells, said Dave Glatt, chief of environmental health at the North Dakota Department of Health.
Ward was indicted in April in U.S. District Court in Montana on charges of wire fraud and conspiracy to commit wire fraud for taking payments on the filters that were illegally dumped. He faces a combined maximum penalty of 25 years in prison if convicted on both counts.
After disposing of the filter socks, Ward allegedly took payments from Zenith Produced Water LLC, the Colorado-based company that produced the waste, and he and an associate deposited checks totaling roughly $10,000 including at a bank in Deer Lodge, Montana, according to the indictment.
Ward has not been seen since September 2013, when he escaped from a private corrections company during a prison transport when the van he was in stopped at a rest area, according to the EPA and media reports.
At the time, Ward was being brought from Arizona to Wyoming to face state larceny charges for allegedly stealing more than $100,000 from a Wyoming trucking company in 2010, according to media reports.
Prior to Ward's 2013 arrest he had been hiding out in northern Mexico, according to the EPA.
Zenith Produced Water originally faced a proposed $800,000 fine in the illegal dumping case. The amount was later reduced to $20,000 in a settlement with North Dakota regulators. Calls Tuesday to a number listed for the company went to a fax.
Glatt said there have been no filter sock illegal dumping cases since the new disposal rules went into effect several years ago.
"That took care of a lot of the issues," Glatt said. "When you're done, you take a few steps and drop it into a disposal container. The incentive to dispose of filter socks anyplace else is not there anymore."
___
Follow Matthew Brown on Twitter at www.twitter.com/matthewbrownap .
Keep reading...Show less
A solution for Hong Kong’s plastic waste crisis: Turn it into fuel.
A wide range of plastics cannot be recycled, or cannot be recycled any further, and end up in a landfill. Such plastics are an excellent, high energy feedstock for gasification.
July was a critical month for plastic pollution. Plastic waste now has catastrophic implications for Hong Kong, and the planet. In July, a study by the University of California, Santa Barbara provided the first global analysis of all mass-produced plastics. Media reports said plastic threatened a “near permanent contamination of the natural environment”, and called the threat a “crisis comparable to climate change”.
The amount of plastic created since 1950 had increased exponentially, from 2 million tonnes to 8.3 billion tonnes in 2017, and is projected to reach 34 billion tonnes by 2050. We are creating a problem that cannot go away: the study found that, in 2015, of the nearly seven billion tonnes of plastic waste generated, only 9 per cent was recycled, 12 per cent incinerated, and 79 per cent accumulated in landfills or the environment.
The devastating impact of plastics on the marine environment can be seen in the many internet videos showing whales, turtles and sea birds killed by ingesting plastic in the sea. The intrusion of plastics into the food chain on both sea and land is well documented.
This July, Hong Kong had unusually high rainfall, which resulted in a visible increase in plastics washed into our waters. Several non-governmental organisations and community groups have been cleaning up beaches; much of the rubbish is plastic.
While their efforts are necessary and laudable, they are also futile. They have an insignificant impact on the total problem and create another – what to do with the collected plastic?
Hong Kong’s recent attempts to reduce municipal solid waste and increase recycling make a sorry story. An Audit Commission report in 2015 noted that the government had failed to reach its targets and policy objectives in a range of project areas, including waste separation at source, waste charging and recycling.
The introduction of a charge for plastic shopping bags has started to change attitudes about the unnecessary use of plastic, yet the actual reduction in quantities delivered to landfills could not be adequately quantified.
One issue was the import and export of plastic waste – some of which was being dumped in our landfills and some exported as recycled material.
None of the figures add up, but it appears as if more plastic is being dumped in Hong Kong than we actually generate.
The audit report said that, in 2014, the Environmental Protection Department noted the unattractiveness of the plastic-recycling trade, pointing out that it was “highly vulnerable” to changes in supply and demand, and to mainland waste and recycling policies.
That observation was proved right in July when China told the World Trade Organisation that it would stop accepting any imports of plastic waste.
In recent pieces in these pages, Edwin Lau, executive director of The Green Earth, noted a disappointing decline in plastic recycling – from 1.58 million tonnes in 2010 to 93,900 tonnes in 2015 – and warned that a serious waste crisis would hit Hong Kong within a few months, as the main market for Hong Kong recyclers – that is, the mainland – would be closed.
Hong Kong already discards 206 tonnes of PET (polyethylene terephthalate) plastic and non-PET plastic bottles every day. With recycling rates dropping, this would place even greater demands on the limited space in landfills.
In April, Hong Kong legislators noted with “grave concern” the government’s failure to meet waste targets and called on it to facilitate and increase the recovery of plastic recyclables, and promote the sustainable development of the waste plastic recycling industry.
The administration’s response does not recognise the significance of the issue, and the inadequacy of their measures to meet the waste disposal catastrophe. Hong Kong has a huge challenge on its hands: massive growth in plastic production worldwide; minimal recycling of plastic; the closure of a major market for recycled plastic; and our only option – landfills – are reaching capacity with no alternatives in sight.
Hong Kong has a major crisis fast approaching regarding plastic and other waste. A new approach using advanced technology and high-capacity solutions needs to be adopted quickly. The amount of waste going to landfills must be reduced dramatically.
We need a new approach.
Fundamentally, the use of plastic needs to be banned by law, where reasonable and other alternatives are available. It should be taxed to price it out of consideration for other uses.
The public must reduce plastic use, and organisations and companies must take steps to ensure that this happens. The simple banning of single-use plastic water bottles by some organisations has been effective in Hong Kong, as refillable alternatives for water can easily be provided.
However, the events of July have shown that these efforts, though necessary, are unlikely to have a significant impact. The market for recycling plastic is collapsing and an alternative must be found which can remove 90 per cent of the plastic used in Hong Kong from the environment.
In this, Hong Kong can be an innovation leader, using its financial, scientific and engineering expertise.
Under the new regulatory agreements the government reached with Hong Kong’s two power suppliers recently, it is now possible for other generators of electricity to be paid for supplying power to the grid. This creates an opportunity for it to be supplied from waste plastic.
The use of gas plasma technology for the treatment of municipal solid waste has relatively long periods of operating success in Japan, China, Europe and the US. While there are mixed reviews of this technology on general waste, similar to that dumped in our landfills, it has proved to be more successful where the fuel source is of a consistent nature.
The use of plastic as a single fuel source, for example, has proved successful. This way, we can dispose of the plastic and generate energy as gas or electricity at the same time.
Gasification is not incineration, but is the use of extreme heat to convert the feedstock into their simplest molecules – carbon monoxide, hydrogen and methane – forming a synthetic gas which can then be used for generating electricity or producing valuable products. This “syngas” can be used in turbines to generate electricity or further processed to produce substitute natural gas, chemicals, fertilisers or transport fuels, such as ethanol.
A wide range of plastics cannot be recycled, or cannot be recycled any further, and end up in a landfill. Such plastics are an excellent, high energy feedstock for gasification.
Gasification can take place in relatively small regional plants, which could be located in our industrial areas or industrial parks. They have proven records of not producing pollutants that could affect surrounding neighbourhoods.
Since July, plastic can no longer be regarded as a waste material that can be recycled in the traditional ways. The economic model of using it as a material for new materials and products no longer works.
Plastic must now be seen as a fuel to generate energy. It should be bought like other fuel sources, creating a market demand. To eliminate the inestimable cost of having plastic polluting the seas, the land, and using up our landfills, the government should buy plastic as feedstock for plasma gasification plants.
The principle of government subsidising a recycling industry already exists. The difference is that the government needs to quickly approve several gasification plants and create a market for plastics as fuel, a consistent market which gives our collectors and recyclers certainty as to where they can sell their product.
Demand for energy from new sources which don’t produce large amounts of carbon dioxide needs to be fully utilised. Plastics can provide that fuel while addressing a major pollution catastrophe.
Ian Brownlee is managing director of Masterplan Limited, a planning and development consultancy which has prepared submissions for NGOs on alternative waste management options for Hong Kong
Keep reading...Show less
Environmental Justice Australia report finds power stations are badly regulated.
Australia is trailing behind places like China when it comes to pollution standards and those living near coal-fired power stations are three times more likely to die a premature death, according to a new report.
AUSTRALIA is trailing behind places like China when it comes to pollution standards and those living near coal-fired power stations are three times more likely to die a premature death, according to a new report.
Environmental Justice Australia (EJA) found Australian power stations are allowed to emit far more pollution than those in the US, China and parts of the European Union, and they are not being regulated well enough to protect human health or the environment.
The toxins produced by coal-fired power stations can have a deadly impact on those living nearby. People who live within 50km are about three to four times more likely to die a premature death as those living further away.
The report looked at four pollutants that are extremely harmful to health and have been linked to asthma, respiratory problems, stroke, angina, heart attack and cancer.
It found coal-fired power stations emitted more than 30 toxic substances and are the biggest sources of fine particles PM2.5, sulfur dioxide and oxides of nitrogen.
“The mercury limits for some NSW power stations are 666 times higher than the US limits. This is unacceptable,” the report said.
“In almost all cases the emissions limits applied to Australian power stations are significantly less stringent than the standards in the European Union, United States and China.”
What controls that are in place are also not well monitored and rarely enforced.
The EJA has made eight recommendations including that the Federal Government commission an independent assessment of health impacts, develop national emission standards, ask for better monitoring and commit to not building, financing or approving any new coal-fired power stations.
When it comes to air pollution, the report suggested “ultra-supercritical” or “high efficiency low emission” (HELE) power stations were not very effective at reducing pollution.
“The best improvement ultra-supercritical technology can offer over subcritical is about a 14 per cent reduction in pollution emissions,” the report said.
NSW Central Coast resident Gary Blaschke OAM said a lot of the downside of living close to coal-fired power stations had been swept under the carpet.
“If pollution was purple, people would be up in arms. Because we often can’t see it — whether it’s in the air on in the ground — many people don’t even think about it.”
THE INVISIBLE KILLER
The report Toxic and terminal: How the regulation of coal-fired power stations fails Australian communities mainly looks at four pollutants. They are coarse particles called PM10, fine particles known as PM2.5, sulfur dioxide and oxides of nitrogen.
In particular PM2.5 has been linked directly to health risks including asthma, bronchitis, acute and chronic respiratory symptoms such as shortness of breath and painful breathing, and premature deaths.
It’s been estimated that PM2.5 exposure has led to 1590 premature deaths each year in Sydney, Melbourne, Brisbane and Perth.
These particles can travel long distances so Sydney residents may feel the impacts of pollution produced by Hunter Valley power stations, but local communities are the most at risk.
People who live within 50km of coal-fired power stations face a risk of premature death as much as three to four times that of people living further away.
It’s been estimated that 18 people living near the now-closed Hazelwood power station in Victoria died premature death due to air pollution in one year.
“The annual health costs of coal-fired power stations across Australia has been estimated at about $2.6 billion a year,” the report said.
“These costs are not factored into wholesale electricity prices or licence fees, and are therefore borne by the community rather than affecting the profits of the power station owners.”
While power stations in NSW are required to pay a load-based licencing fee based on how much they pollute, Doctors for the Environment Australia has calculated that to properly reflect the health cost, fees would need to be 50 times their current levels.
One Hunter Valley resident Bev Smiles said there was huge concern in the area about the potential health impacts from coal-related activities.
“The way the air moves through the valley — it’s a long valley with steep escarpments on either side — it picks up all the pollutants from the mines and the power stations together, so we’ve got this huge cocktail of air pollution,” she said.
“Here in the Hunter Valley we have one of the highest incidences of asthma in Australia.”
SEE NO EVIL, HEAR NO EVIL ...
There are national air pollution standards for six key pollutants, including PM2.5, but state governments are the ones that regulate this area and they don’t have to do anything to reduce emissions if they go too high.
For example, NSW has exceeded national standards for yearly concentrations of PM2.5 since monitoring began, but the state hasn’t introduced any extra controls on polluters and has even approved new polluting industries, the report suggested.
Unlike in the United States and European Union, there are also no national limits specifically for power station emissions.
So each state and territory in Australia regulates power station emissions differently, using different standards and limits.
This makes it very difficult to compare emission limits across different power stations in Australia and helps power stations to avoid scrutiny.
“This is unacceptable,” the report said. “The emissions limits set on power stations are critically important for human health — there is a significant difference in health outcomes from adopting higher or lower emissions limits.”
“In Australia there has been no national assessment by governments of whether our power stations have limits imposed on them to properly protect human and environmental health.”
The EJA believes binding national standards on pollutants should be introduced in Australia.
It compared emissions of 10 power stations from NSW, Victoria and Queensland using information from the National Pollutant Inventory, and found in most cases the emissions limits applied to Australian power stations were significantly less stringent than the standards overseas. The mercury limits were particularly striking.
Mercury can cause significant harm to humans, including death, and can build up in the environment. The US in particular has very strict limits for mercury that are 666 times lower than limits for some NSW power stations and 33 times lower than in the EU and China.
Even worse, Victoria and Queensland have no mercury limits at all.
MONITORING CAN BE ‘WILDLY IN ERROR’
Another problem is there’s very little independent monitoring.
Power stations monitor their own emissions but some stations only have to do this once or twice a year. Most don’t have to give this data to the regulator, although they do have to show they are complying if asked.
Power stations also provide an estimate of air pollution emissions annually to the National Pollutant Inventory but this figure is just an estimate and its calculation was developed by the industry. In some cases they are only released 18 months after the emissions happened.
The EJA found these reports were rarely checked or verified by government.
It found some reports appeared to be “wildly in error”, including one Mount Piper power station that reported a 92 per cent drop in PM2.5 emissions, at the same time energy output increased by 16 per cent.
In fact the EJA found reported emissions for all NSW power stations had dropped significantly since 2008/09 for no obvious reason.
None of these companies reported installing new pollution reduction technologies that could explain this drop.
But at least NSW monitors PM2.5, other areas don’t have to distinguish between larger particles or the finer and more dangerous PM2.5.
The EJA believes the lack of monitoring for PM2.5 is particularly concerning and something that the International Energy Agency has urged power stations to do.
Even in NSW the monitoring is problematic because they do this in nearby areas, not at the power station, which the EJA says is not ideal because it’s hard to know how much of the pollution is being created by the power plant or some other source.
Those worried about pollution also have very little real-time information of emissions from power stations and EJA believes they should be changed.
NOTHING HAPPENS WHEN THEY ARE CAUGHT
Even if a breach is identified, regulators appear very reluctant to fine companies for non-compliance and fines are usually only issued when there is an outcry from the community or it is a very serious pollution event that can’t be ignored.
The fines issued also seem very low in light of the pollution caused.
One example cited involved NSW’s largest power station Eraring located at Lake Macquarie, which is owned by Origin Energy. It breached its licence conditions 23 times in the last 10 years, including an explosion that caused 8000 litres of oil to leak into the lake. But in this time it has only been issued one penalty infringement notice and fined $15,000 for allowing toxic ash from an ash dam to escape and cover nearby neighbourhoods.
AGEING POWER PLANTS COULD BE A PROBLEM
Australia has 17 commercially operated coal-fired power stations located in NSW, Queensland, Victoria and Western Australia, and many of them are very old.
Half of Australia’s power stations are at least 30 years old, the oldest one is located at Liddell in NSW and is 46 years old.
The EJA said regulators had generally not required power stations to reduce emissions since the 1970s and 1980s, despite the fact there was new technology that could be used to help them do this.
It found power stations had not bothered to install things like wet scrubbers, selective catalytic reduction methods and bag/fabric filters.
As power stations get older they often increase their toxic emissions because their older-style technology begins to fail, and more regular start up and shut downs of the power station are required to maintain the plant which emit excessive levels of pollution.
There could also be problem once a plant closes and it has to be decommissioned, which involves cleaning and dismantling equipment, disposing of highly toxic substances and preparing waste disposal sites for capping and remediation.
The funds required are huge.
Engie, the owner of now-closed Hazelwood power station and mine, estimated that decommissioning and rehabilitating the power station site would cost at least $304 million.
But unlike miners, power station operators do not have to pay a bond or financial assurances to ensure the government can cover the costs of rehabilitation once a site closes if the operator fails to do this.
The EJA found no financial assurances have been imposed on any of the power stations currently operating in NSW, Victoria and Queensland.
“This is a huge concern,” the report said. “There are high risks of either a company abandoning its liabilities once a power station is closed — potentially by selling the asset, winding up or declaring itself insolvent — or of the costs of decommissioning and rehabilitation being significantly more than any assurance or the assets of the company.”
“Abandoned mines and other toxic sites around Australia are testimony to these risks.
This could be a massive cost.”
charis.chang@news.com.au | @charischang2
Keep reading...Show less
Multiple violations found at Washington State's nuclear power plant.
The Washington State Department of Health (DOH) last month suspended indefinitely the shipment of radioactive waste from the state’s sole nuclear power plant.
Multiple violations found at state's nuclear power plant
The state's only nuclear power plant is in trouble for mistakes with shipping radioactive waste.
Susannah Frame, KING 9:21 PM. PDT August 10, 2017
(Photo: KING)
CONNECT
TWEET
GOOGLE+
The Washington State Department of Health (DOH) last month suspended indefinitely the shipment of radioactive waste from the state’s sole nuclear power plant.
Internal documents obtained by the KING 5 Investigators reveal that the Columbia Generating Station, operated by the publicly owned Energy Northwest, made repeated errors in its shipping of radioactive waste, in violation of state and federal regulations, dating back to 2014.
“There have been multiple deficiencies with the shipments of radioactive waste which has resulted in noncompliance with Federal, US Ecology, and State of Washington requirements,” wrote Robby Peek, Energy Northwest Quality Services supervisor in a July 26 interoffice memo.
Peek characterized the problems as “significant” and wrote the pattern of errors has led to a “loss of regulatory confidence.”
“Additionally, incorrect details within the shipping manifest can increase risk to the health and safety of the public,” wrote Peek.
The most recent event caused the DOH to revoke the plant’s shipping rights for the third time in the last three years.
A July 26 letter from the DOH to Energy Northwest outlines what led to the temporary ban. Inspectors at the state’s low level radioactive waste dump found a July 20 shipment of waste was far more radioactive than what was listed on the shipping manifest.
“Inspections of your shipment revealed (violations) of the US Ecology Radioactive Materials license…and the Washington Administrative Code,” wrote Kristen Schwab, DOH Office of Radiation Protection waste management supervisor. “Because of the nature of the violations found in this shipment, authorization to use the commercial low-level radioactive waste disposal site by Energy Northwest has been suspended indefinitely.”
The Columbia Generating Station (CGS) is located approximately 10 miles outside of Richland on land leased at the Hanford Site. Although located on the same reservation as the former defense nuclear weapons factory, the power plant is not affiliated with Hanford. CGS has been producing electricity utilized throughout the Northwest since 1984.
Energy Northwest’s chief communication officer, Mike Paoli, downplayed the July 20 incident. He described it as a paperwork mix-up.
“The driver was given the wrong manifest,” said Paoli. “First and foremost, there is no public health or safety issue now.”
The interoffice memo authored by Peek called for an immediate “Stop Work Order,” meaning all shipping of radioactive materials off site must cease until certain corrective actions are taken. The Stop Work is in addition to the state’s action and is a highly unusual step for the company to take. Peek described 12 separate shipping deficiencies from October 2014 to July 2017.
“Corrective actions taken to date have been ineffective at preventing recurrence,” wrote Peek.
The most serious violation occurred in November 2016 when federal regulators from the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) issued a “Notice of Violation” after contaminated filters arrived at the state’s dump measuring a radiation level seven times greater than what was listed on the shipping manifest. The dump is also located on the Hanford Site. That violation set off a series of inspections and additional NRC oversight. It also made the CGS one of only 14 plants out of 99 across the country on the NRC watch list.
“You would think they would have learned their lesson and made corrections considering they just were cited by the NRC and spent several months fighting the NRC over additional oversight over this very same issue,” said Chuck Johnson, director of the Joint Task Force on Nuclear Power at Physicians for Social Responsibility. Physicians for Social Responsibility is a long-time critic of nuclear power.
Nuclear policy expert Robert McCullough reviewed documents related to the shipping errors for KING 5. McCullough has advised Congress and the Department of Justice on energy issues for many years. He said the July 20 incident by itself doesn’t appear to pose any risk but the totality of problems dating back to 2014 is of concern.
“The good news is, as far as I’ve seen, none of these things are immediately dangerous but the bad news is we’re getting quite a list of them, and it’s time to take a good hard look at what we are doing there,” said McCullough. “We’re reaching that point where we’re seeing enough of these problems we’ve begun to worry if the plant is being sufficiently maintained.”
It’s no secret the CGS has been under pressure to cut costs. McCullough said understaffing is most likely to blame for the pattern of errors.
“My experience with the nuclear plant is the staff is very competent. However, they’re in cost reduction mode so this would indicate to me that this particular department has lost staff and the remaining staff are unable to keep up with the administrative load,” said McCullough.
A veteran Energy Northwest employee who did not want to be identified for fear of retaliation said the problems can be traced to the company’s top officials.
“This is a leadership issue because it is a repeat problem,” said the employee. “Stop work orders are very rare and very serious. It means something that is important is going very wrong. That should show that this is a systemic issue that leadership can’t fix for whatever reason.”
Even seemingly small errors take on new meaning at nuclear power plants because the stakes are so high. The worst-case scenario is a Fukushima-like event when an earthquake and tsunami led to a nuclear power plant meltdown, explosions, and the spewing of radioactive material in 2011.
“Now we don’t think that’s going to happen. We think we run plants well. We think we have lots of precautions but what we’re seeing here is the beginning of a flag that we don’t have enough precautions,” said McCullough.
Energy Northwest’s Paoli underscored how safe the CGS is. He said the nuclear industry has the best track record of any other energy producer, such as coal and hydropower.
“The nuclear industry has the safest record environmentally and with regard to industrial safety than any energy industry in the United States or in the world. There’s a reason we’re the safest industry – because we take these things seriously,” said Paoli. “We’re not shipping toys down the road. This is serious business for us.”
The DOH said the suspension of shipping rights could last approximately 45 days.
“If you wish to reestablish (dump) site use privileges, you must allow a point-of-origin inspection conducted by the state of Washington, with all expenses paid by Energy Northwest,” wrote Schwab. “The department is also requiring you to participate in a management meeting…after receipt of your root cause investigation and description of corrective actions….If no response is received within 90 days, your site use permit will be terminated.”
© 2017 KING-TV
CONNECT
TWEET
GOOGLE+
JOIN THE CONVERSATION
To find out more about Facebook commenting please read the
Conversation Guidelines and FAQs
LEAVE A COMMENT
TRENDING VIDEOS
Everett business sets up 'tweaker cam'
Driving to Oregon to see the eclipse? Read this first
An Olympics love story
Seahawks schedule announced
Nuclear power plant safety
Viewer video: Corn truck spill on I-90
Salmon fishing starts in Elliott Bay
Trump chicken designed by Seattle artist
The Pacific Northwest could be a 'climate refuge'
Beach to Beacon 1st and 2nd place runners
MORE STORIES
Family of Charleena Lyles to sue city of Seattle
Aug 11, 2017, 11:00 a.m.
Air quality burn bans set to lift Friday afternoon
Aug 11, 2017, 11:25 a.m.
#ReviveI5 is back, but that's not the only traffic…
Aug 11, 2017, 2:30 a.m.
About Us
Contact Us
Reporters Index
Help
Connect With Us
EEO Public File Report • FCC Online Public Inspection File
Home
Weather
Radar
Webcams
Futurecast
Weather Pix
Beyond the Forecast
SchoolNet
More...
Local
Investigators
HealthLink
Environment
Aerospace
Business/Tech
Politics
More...
Nation Now
Traffic
Traffic News
Traffic Cameras
Traffic Alerts
Pass Reports
Gas Prices
Drive Times
More...
Sports
Seahawks
Mariners
Sounders FC
Storm
Huskies
Cougars
More...
Features
Best of Western Washington
Entertainment
Children's HealthLink
Explore the PNW
T.D. Jakes
Home Appreciation
More...
About
Meet the Team
KING5 Community
Connect with Us
Advertise With Us
TV Schedule
Jobs at KING5
More...
© 2017 KING-TV
Services
Advertise With Us
KING 5 Jobs
Closed Captioning Procedures
FCC Online Public Inspection File
Privacy Notice / Your California Privacy Rights
Terms of Service
TV Schedule
Ad Choices
Our Partners
NBC
Cars.com Seattle
GeekWire
Justice Network
425 Magazine
South Sound Magazine
425 Business
Keep reading...Show less
ORIGINAL REPORTING
MOST POPULAR
CLIMATE
