[Southsider2k12]

http://thenewsdispatch.com/articles/2010/0...f3404478154.txt

Pines group: We’re ‘shut out’ of probe

Kim Ferraro, Legal Environmental Aid Foundation executive director, speaks with People in Need of Environmental Safety members Cathi Murray and Paul Kysel during a meeting Thursday in Pines. Photo by Alicia Ebaugh
By Alicia Ebaugh
Staff Writer
Published: Friday, September 3, 2010 5:11 PM CDT
PINES — Still denied funding for a consultant to provide input on risk assessments related to coal ash waste dumped in Yard 520, Pines residents claim they are being “completely shut out” of the ongoing Superfund Alternative investigation there.

“Likely it will come to a close without significant community involvement unless we are able to successfully force them to go back to square one with this,” said Paul Kysel, vice president of the non-profit group People In Need of Environmental Safety, a resident group formed to track the groundwater issue.

“The drafts of these risk assessments seem to indicate they’ve done everything necessary by bringing in water, so no other action will be necessary. And there’s nothing we can do to stop it without someone who knows how to analyze these reports.”

It’s one of a litany of issues residents said they’ve run into since most of the town was designated a Superfund Alternative site in 2004. Kysel said he has hope things could turn around, either through the group’s recent affiliation with an area environmental law group or a federal lawsuit. But even with the help of Kim Ferraro, executive director of the Legal Environmental Aid Foundation in Valparaiso, federal officials are slow to respond, Kysel said.

“I’m frustrated they’re not really answering my questions, but I’m not surprised at all,” Ferraro said. “The (Environmental Protection Agency) is not living up to its role here.”

NIPSCO, along with Brown Inc. and its subsidiaries, are working with the EPA to study the Superfund Alternative site and provide needed cleanup. Coal ash was used as filler for yards, roads and other projects in Pines in the 1970s, in part because NIPSCO was using the Yard 520 landfill as a disposal site for its coal ash, which is left after the burning of coal for electricity. Brown Inc., a local contracting firm, owns the landfill, and trucks from its subsidiaries hauled the coal ash there from NIPSCO’s Bailly and Michigan City power plants.

In about 25 years, NIPSCO disposed of 1.5 million tons of coal ash waste at Yard 520. The landfill was shut down in 2003 after high levels of boron, molybdenum and arsenic were detected in residents’ well water.

According to a Technical Assistance Plan signed by PINES, NIPSCO and Brown Inc., the group should have access to $50,000 in additional funding it could use through the ongoing risk assessments gauging the impact the town’s coal ash pollution could have on human health and the environment. But two work plans the group has submitted have been rejected by the EPA, Ferraro said, and the money will not be given to them until a work plan is in place. The first work plan they submitted in March would have likely gone over the $50,000 budget, but it would have provided a similar level of consultant review as they had during the remedial investigation stage. The second work plan submitted in April only provided for consultants to review the reports after they are finalized and provide information to residents.

“Neither of these plans were workable,” said Tim Drexler, EPA project manager for the Yard 520 Superfund Alternative site. “They can’t plan to spend more than $50,000, that’s not the purpose of (the TAP). We need a plan that tries to stay within the framework, but provides for review of documents still in revision.”

Drexler said the EPA works with community groups like PINES to help them stay within funding constraints. For example, he said, he told them that rather than having a consultant review the reports in the first draft stage, to only review the documents after the second drafts are turned in.

“We have a number of reviewers and contractors both employed by the EPA and with other organizations like (Indiana Department of Environmental Management) and the National Park Service who are committed to making these documents the best they can be,” Drexler said. “That way, their consultants can focus a little more and lean on our technical folks, make sure we have done thorough reviews and redo the calculations and mathematics so they feel it was all properly done.”

Risk assessment documents are still being provided to PINES for their review, Drexler said, but Kysel said he does not want to participate any further without funding.

“I feel like our hands are tied,” he said. “Even with reduced participation, it’s been pretty clear it will cost more to be involved than they’ll give us.”

More than two years ago, the PINES group exhausted the first $50,000 it was given by NIPSCO and Brown Inc. as part of their agreement to provide for community involvement. PINES’ consultants, Denver-based Geo-Hydro Inc., are still owed more than $86,000 for examining and commenting on investigative reports that determined the risks faced by humans and the environment from Yard 520 waste — work they completed between July 2008 and May 2009. NIPSCO spokesman Nick Meyer said that work was done outside of the agreement they signed with PINES, and the companies have refused to pay it, although they have said publicly in the past they would if the EPA directed them to do it. But Drexler said the EPA could not require them to do something they couldn’t do themselves.

“We’re not in a position where we can require them to pay that past cost. It’s an issue of expending funds in a period where there was not funding,” Drexler said.

The PINES group agreed to try mediation with NIPSCO and Brown Inc. to reach a settlement over the bill, but in January it rejected an offer for partial reimbursement, Dan Sullivan, leader of NIPSCO’s environmental health and safety program, wrote in an e-mail to Ferraro. Ferraro said that offer would have paid Geo-Hydro 25 cents on the dollar.

“We want Geo-Hydro to be paid in full for their work,” Kysel said of their rejection. “NIPSCO has all this money to throw at their scientists and attorneys, but they refuse to pay for work that gives us a voice.”

Meyer said the companies are continuing to address important issues in the community and are willing to continue the mediation process.

“We have been willing to spend what is necessary towards this project, which is evidenced by the significant investment made up to this point,” Meyer wrote in an e-mail. “A significant portion of that investment went towards the water service extension project, which eliminated potential risks associated with well water in the town.”

NIPSCO and Brown Inc. have spent more than $3.6 million so far providing water hookups and a continued supply of bottled water to residents not living within the water service area.

Regardless, Ferraro maintains any agreements originally made between the group, NIPSCO and Brown Inc. were not made in accordance with the site’s Administrative Order of Consent or EPA policy, which she claims would force the companies to pay all of these funds immediately. In a June 7 letter to the EPA, Ferraro outlined various documents that supported her position and also addressed issues with the work plans and the lack of a clear process to resolve disagreements. These problems are ongoing violations of federal law that could be addressed in a lawsuit if mediation is not successful, she said.

“Federal regulations pretty clearly define what is needed, but those provisions are not included in PINES’ agreements,” she said. “Things have been flawed from the beginning. They need to be fixed.”

In the e-mail to Ferraro, Sullivan wrote NIPSCO and Brown Inc. believe it is unnecessary to modify their agreement “now that the work under the Administrative Order is nearing completion.”

An update on the investigation

PINES — Where is the Superfund Alternative investigation into the Pines Ground Water Plume now?

The final draft of a remedial investigation concerning coal ash contaminants from the Yard 520 landfill was published in late spring. It describes how much pollution is present and where it may be headed.

NIPSCO and Brown Inc. released an update on the report’s findings at the end of July with these key findings:

• Coal ash byproducts in groundwater include boron, arsenic, sulfate, strontium and molybdenum. Concentrations of these chemicals are elevated at and downgradient from Yard 520, meaning generally from upland areas to Brown Ditch and its tributaries and wetlands to the north. In the east part of the area of investigation, elevated concentrations are present in areas where coal ash may have been used as fill over a large area, and toward the east branch of Brown Ditch. The chemicals do not extend northward toward Indiana Dunes National Lakeshore at significant levels.

• Arsenic was present in all the background soil samples at concentrations above the EPA’s risk-based comparison level for human health, but that is common for many background soils throughout the nation. It also was found at high levels in samples of coal ash. Arsenic appears to migrate from coal combustion byproducts to groundwater, at least at Yard 520, but it is not transported a significant distance with the water.

• Elevated concentrations of boron and molybdenum were found in the surface water of Brown Ditch, likely due to the contribution of groundwater containing coal ash byproducts.

• Other sources of impacts have been identified, including possible groundwater contamination from Pines Landfill to the south, septic system discharges and road salt.

First drafts of the human health and environmental risk assessments have been reviewed by the EPA and been returned to NIPSCO and Brown Inc.’s consultant, AECOM, which is carrying out the investigation. The assessments measure what problems these identified contaminants can cause and defines “unacceptable risk.” For residents, that means the probability of developing cancer. For plants and animals, it’s whether they will have an adverse affect on species.

Drexler would not comment on the results of the assessments so far, although the final documents for this stage will likely be finalized by the end of the year.

“The rest of the process is about remedying the risks that are identified,” Drexler said. “We will develop a preferred alternative from a list, present it to the public in the form of a hearing, then generate a record of decision.”

Intensive monitoring in the years to come will be required to make sure the plan is followed, he said.

[edgeywood]

http://thenewsdispatch.com/articles/2010/0...f3404478154.txt

On a related note:

1.5 million tons of coal ash was dumped in the town of Pines resulting in the contamination of the residents’ well water. In Chicago, on September 16th, the Environmental Protection Agency will hear public comments on a proposal for the first-ever national rules to ensure the safe disposal and management of coal ash from coal-fired power plants.

The PINES group (People In Need of Environmental Safety) and the Sierra Club are sponsoring a free bus ride to the hearing. Board the bus at 7:30AM at the Pines Park located on Rt. 20 and Birch St. in the Pines. The bus leaves Chicago at 4PM. Call 879-3466 or 874-2865 for additional information on the trip. Information on the EPA proposal is available at: EPA web site

[Southsider2k12]

http://www.post-trib.com/news/porter/26835...al-0908.article

Pines will issue plea for coal ash controls
Comments

September 8, 2010
POST-TRIBUNE STAFF REPORT

PINES -- Residents whose wells are contaminated by coal ash plan to tell the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency at a Chicago hearing next week to start regulating the substance.

The residents are sponsoring a bus for anyone who wants to join them in commenting on the first-ever national rules to ensure the safe disposal and management of coal ash from coal-fired power plants.
FYI

On Thursday, Sept. 16, the EPA will hold a hearing in Chicago on its proposed first-ever national rules on disposal and management of coal ash from coal-fired power plants.

The PINES group (People In Need of Environmental Safety) and the Sierra Club are sponsoring a free bus ride to the hearing. The bus leaves Pines Park on U.S. 20 and Birch Street in Pines at 7:30 a.m. and departs from Chicago at 4 p.m.

For more information on the trip, call 879-3466 or 874-2865. Information on the EPA proposal is available at http://bit.ly/EPAcoalashregs

Coal ash spread across the town of Pines west of Michigan City has contaminated residents' well water.

The Northern Indiana Public Service Co. used to store coal ash near its Michigan City plant. In the 1980s, ash ponds at NIPSCO's Michigan City generating station were overflowing with coal ash. About a million tons of waste were moved to Brown's Yard 520 in the Pines for what was supposed to be temporary storage.

In 2000, chemicals from the landfill were found in private wells at homes in the town of Pines at twice the safe level. As "potentially responsible parties," NIPSCO and Brown agreed to pay to supply residents with municipal water.


Related Blog Posts
Coal Ash EPA Hearing in Texas

From TexasVox: The Voice of Public Citizen in Texas
EPA holding public hearings on coal ash

From Iowa Independent
EPA sets seven public hearings on coal ash

From The Rural Blog
Eastern Ky. residents sue coal company after widespread July flooding

From The Rural Blog




The views expressed in these blog posts are those of the author and not of the Post-Tribune.

[Southsider2k12]

http://www.post-trib.com/news/porter/27176...ash0917.article

Pines residents want EPA to take action on coal ash
Comments

September 17, 2010
BY GITTE LAASBY, (219) 648-2183

CHICAGO -- Residents from around the Great Lakes have lived with the effects of coal ash contamination for years: In Pines, Jan Nona's drinking water well was contaminated with cancer-causing pollutants from coal ash. In Illinois, the ash came down like snow on Mary Parks' house.

On Thursday, Nona and 17 of her fellow Pines residents trekked to Chicago to convince officials from U.S. Environmental Protection Agency it's about time they begin to regulate the disposal of coal ash so others don't end up experiencing the same "devastation."

COMMENT

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency takes comments on the two proposals until Nov. 19.

For more information, visit www.epa.gov/coalashrule

"Coal combustion produces smoke, but the industry produces a smoke screen," George Adey, a Pines town councilman, said at the EPA public hearing, which went on for hours. "The industry has showed you why they need to be regulated. They put profits before protection."

But residents and environmentalists were flanked by two equally dedicated groups who depend on coal ash for their livelihood: Indiana farmers who use gypsum with coal ash to fertilize their fields and reduce runoff and representatives from energy companies who argued that new regulations would stymie efforts to recycle coal ash in useful products such as concrete for roads like the Dan Ryan Expressway.

Industry representatives said coal ash is neither toxic nor hazardous and that "unnecessary" regulations would divert millions of tons of reusable material to landfills. They said regulations could cost jobs in businesses that reuse coal ash and increase electricity rates.

Indiana is one of only six states nationwide that do not have permits for landfills used to manage coal ash waste.

The EPA is considering two options for regulating coal ash. Both will require liners and groundwater monitoring at new landfills handling coal ash to prevent pollution from leaching into groundwater and posing a health risk.

One option (called Subtitle C) would classify coal ash as a hazardous waste, which would phase out wet handling of coal ash and existing surface impoundments. The other option (Subtitle D) would require liners, which creates an incentive to close the impoundments and transition to safer landfills that store dry coal ash.

The main differences between the two proposals are implementation and enforcement.

Environmentalists and residents mainly supported Subtitle C. It would require state or federal permits and allow federal enforcement. There would be requirements related to storage, transportation, disposal and financial responsibility.

Industry representatives and farmers prefer Subtitle D. It would not require permit programs, although states could establish their own. It would not be federally enforceable or establish the same extensive management requirements for coal ash, but citizens could file suits for enforcement.

'It was a mess'

In the 1980s, the Northern Indiana Public Service Co. moved about a million tons of coal ash from its Michigan City plant to Brown's Yard 520 in the Pines. Former Pines Town Board President James Prast said the town also accepted coal ash from NIPSCO as fill for its streets after the company and the health department assured officials that the material was safe.

"It was a good economic way for the town to prosper and build new roads. We didn't have the money. They'd bring all this in, it allowed us to finish the roads," said Prast, adding the dust soon became a hassle. "It was a mess that we stopped. It wasn't 'til later when they started complaining about the odor in the water and the taste of the water and the arsenic."

NIPSCO representatives were at the hearing to listen.

"We will likely plan to submit written comments to EPA, but we wanted to hear what was being presented first," NIPSCO spokesman Nick Meyer said. "Nothing has been drafted at this time."

It would take years to implement the Subtitle C rule because states would have to adopt them before they take effect. Subtitle D would be implemented within about six months of promulgation.

The goal of regulation is to ensure stronger oversight of the structural integrity of impoundments to prevent accidents like the December 2008 spill that flooded 300 acres of land in Kingston, Tenn., with coal ash.