For five years, Peter Taglia worked as an environmental consultant for utilities in Wisconsin.

Waterloo Sout

Basic Materials Corp. Quarry in Waterloo, which was issued a waiver from the state allowing it to use coal ash as fill without following landfill standards.

As a hydrogeologist, Taglia would assist in developing groundwater-monitoring plans for sites used to dispose of coal ash, the toxic byproduct of burning coal. But no matter how hard Taglia worked or how state-of-the-art the sites were, there was always a chance of contamination.

“I worked on a couple of problems even in landfills specifically designed for coal combustion waste to modern standards,” he said in an interview. “Any time you put potential sources of contamination in huge volumes anywhere on the ground or in the ground, the potential for groundwater contamination is there. That is a problem.”

But unlike Iowa, Wisconsin has laws mandating the installation of groundwater-monitoring wells at all sites that accept coal ash and has for nearly two decades.

“A number of these groundwater impacts have been found before they have hit because [the state DNR] does a good job of requiring groundwater-monitoring systems surrounding landfill sites,” said Taglia, who now serves as a staff scientist for environmental watchdog Clean Wisconsin. “You have to surround the site with groundwater-monitoring wells, you have to measure water levels regularly and measure chemistry regularly. So, when you do see problems you’re not taken by surprise and you can work to resolve it.”

During its June meeting on Tuesday, Iowa’s Environmental Protection Commission (EPC), an arm of the state’s Department of Natural Resources that provides policy oversight, will hear from Cedar Rapids-based Plains Justice on the potential public health risks associated with coal ash disposal in quarries and mines and why a system of standardized groundwater monitoring should be mandated.

Because these sites are not required to follow landfill standards, which would mandate groundwater monitoring and a protective containment lining, there is a risk that toxins in the coal ash could leach into groundwater supplies. A recent EPA report found the cancer risk to be 1 in 2,000 from exposure to arsenic in drinking water for residents living near unlined landfills containing coal ash and coal refuse, which is 500 times the level usually regarded as safe by current federal regulations.

“There could be contamination happening right now and we don’t even know it,” said Donna Wong-Gibbons, public health specialist with Plains Justice. “Some of the cases in other states where there has been contamination it has been obvious. The water was discolored. But not all contamination is like that or obvious with visual inspection. That’s why monitoring is so important.”

Chad Stobbe, the Iowa Department of Natural Resources’ lead staffer on coal ash issues, told the Iowa Independent in March that because there is no data available, he can’t say for sure there isn’t already contamination.

It’s a problem that doesn’t exist in Wisconsin.

“With proper monitoring, there is very little chance chemicals will leach out and someone will end up drinking contaminated water,” Taglia said. “Problems would be discovered long before that. It’s not that technically interesting or difficult to do, it just has a cost element related to it.”

That cost, which industry representatives estimate at anywhere from $250,000 to $500,000 an acre, has been cited as a reason not to go forward with upgrading Iowa’s four unlined, unmonitored coal ash disposal sites. Opponents of tougher standards point out that the cost would eventually have to be passed on to taxpayers, since most users of quarries and mines for coal ash disposal are municipally owned utilities and the state’s regent universities.

However, a recent study by the Institute for Policy Integrity (IPI), a non-partisan think tank based in New York City, found the benefits of upgrading disposal sites would exceed the costs of tougher regulations by almost 10 to 1. The research focused mostly on coal ash ponds like the one that failed in Kingston, Tenn., in December. The costs for quarries to upgrade would be much lower than the costs for ponds, according Scott Holladay, an economist who researched the issue for IPI.

“It’s not just the cost of cleanup if there is contamination,” Holladay said in an interview. “It is also the cost of health risks, like cancer. The cost of treating bladder cancer, for example, is something we are going to have to pay if we don’t line these facilities and groundwater is poisoned.”

Coal ash contains much greater concentrations of elements such as mercury, zinc, lead, arsenic and selenium than the coal itself. Exposure to these toxins could not only lead to cancer, but also birth defects and reproductive problems, Wong-Gibbons said.

Carrie Le Seur, president of Plains Justice and a member of the EPC, said she understands the state is hesitant to move forward on new coal ash regulations while the federal government is drafting its own rules. But it could be years before new regulations are officially implemented. And in the mean time, the state should take steps to ensure public health is protected and the taxpayers are not stuck paying for the clean up of any contamination.

“Very few of the sites where coal ash is being disposed of in this state have any kind of financial assurances in case of contamination,” Le Seur said. “There is no requirement under current Iowa law that any of the owners or contributors to these sites would be required to pay for the clean up. The state, and by implication the taxpayers, could be responsible for the enormous cost of clean up.”

In other states where groundwater has been contaminated, sites have been excavated and bottled water was trucked in because wells were poisoned and undrinkable. In July 2007, the EPA had confirmed 24 cases in 13 states where coal ash has compromised water quality.

“Yes, it is going to cost money,” Le Seur said. “It costs more to do things right than just to dump coal ash in a hole. The real question for the state is how big a liability risk it wants to create for taxpayers. There is a risk, the state has the authority to do something, but if we wait we increase the risk of groundwater contamination. It is irresponsible for the state to do nothing.”

For private entities, financial assurances usually come in the form of bonding. Owners must post a bond to cover the costs of closure, post-closure care and if applicable, corrective action. Holladay said the cost of acquiring these could be huge for sites that are considered risky, like the four quarries and mines in Iowa. Therefore, it would end up being in a site owners’ best interest to install a liner or monitoring wells in order to lower the cost of compliance.

State Sen. Dennis Black of Grinnell, who chairs the Senate Environmental and Energy Independence Committee, said if the EPC does not begin the process of drafting stricter rules, the legislature could step in.