Based on the wide-spread reaction of our last post, we thought that is would be good to further explain “the choices” that could be available to all stakeholders (utilities, EPA, politicians, state regulators, environmental groups, and local communities) dealing with excavated legacy coal ash. Before any choices are revealed, all the stakeholders must decide [...]
Despite years of controversy …. All stakeholders (utilities, EPA, politicians, state regulators, environmental groups, and local communities) will have to decide on “dig it up” or “cover it up” as a middle-path solution. When that happens, the stakeholders will have to make choices as for the methods to deploy. In all these discussions of [...]
From an environmental standpoint when is it appropriate to do more than the bare minimum? The answer is ALWAYS! It doesn't matter if you are a large/small Waste Management Company, a Utility dealing with CCR management, a small private/public landfill, or a Development Company trying to transform an environmental eyesore into usable space; it [...]
Are you tired of hearing about coal ash yet? Is it harmful, is it in groundwater or not, is it going to be excavated, are the states protecting its citizens, and how much is it really going to cost are all common coal ash discussion points. Who could blame you if you are tired [...]
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency is revisiting its 2015 rule that regulated the disposal of toxic waste from coal-fired power plants. Among other actions, the EPA has ordered companies to stop placing ash in unlined ponds since keeping coal ash in unlined storage has long been the threat to drinking water. When the dust settles, [...]
There is a battle brewing whether a Coal Ash Impoundment’s Cap-In-Place Closure Plan (even partial hybrid methods) are protective enough when ground water issues exist or high probability that they will develop. Despite current regulations with more regulations on the way, there is a large environmental poker game being played. Some utilities and state [...]
Over the past several years, increased pressure from communities, environmental groups, politicians, and regulators has increased the challenges associated with landfill capacity expansions. Traditional expansion approaches take years to develop only to find out that the landfill owner was on the wrong path and did not develop a “Plan B”, wasting time and money. [...]
It’s going to happen. All stakeholders, utilities, environmental groups, regulators, citizens, and governments will decide on some compromise over the closure of coal ash basins with ground water impacts. Taking the “middle path” between the two extreme stances; Cap-In-Place by the utilities and Excavate-Haul by the environmental groups results in on-site storage. This could [...]
M echanically stabilized earthen (MSE) berms are a practical technique for expanding capacity in existing landfills. Unfortunately, there are some common misconceptions about their use prohibiting the proliferation of MSE berms at landfills. One of the main misconceptions is that MSE berms “are not safe”. Over the past several years, encapsulated mechanically stabilized earth [...]
M echanically stabilized earthen (MSE) berms are a practical technique for expanding capacity in existing landfills. Unfortunately, there are some common misconceptions about their use prohibiting the proliferation of MSE berms at landfills. One of the main misconceptions is that MSE berms “cost too much to construct”. Over the past several years, encapsulated mechanically [...]
