SAPPI
investigative report
Report by Willie Beetge
Sappi investigated for damaging the environment, with Toxic coal ash, #sappi #coal ash #tennesse #groundwater #south coast kwa Zulu natal #afriforum
The following statement,
from Southern environmental center, carries some weight and warns the lawmakers
of disaster. They show that the real issue with the implementation of law is
not the toxicity of the ash but rather political and industrial pressure. The
same situation is currently playing out at SAPPI on the South Coast of Kwa Zulu
Natal, where block makers and politicians are approving the use of Toxic Ash. Environmentalists
however condemn the distribution of the ash voicing their fears that the heavy
metals contained in the ash will contaminate ground water and rivers. Heavy
metals like Arsenic, mercury, cobalt and many others. During negotiations with
SAPPI environmentalists send many emails to explain their concerns and
AfriForum Amanzimtoti was called in. In the e mails and later in newspaper
reports, the ash was called “Toxic ash”. Sappi general manager Mr. Peter Morris
objected strongly to the use of “TOXIC”. He stated in his e mail “referring to
the material that has been provided to the block makers as Toxic ash, Sappi
strongly objects that these inflammatory statements are not only incorrect, but
unscrupulously misleading.” In the
statement from the Southern environmental center they warn against the danger
to water and community’s contamination, they further said “particularly
disadvantage communities”.
The current
situation at the Sappi plant distribute the toxic ash into especially
disadvantage communities has triggered this investigation. The real question will be is the Toxic Ash beneficial
to the community and what will it cost them and the environment?
On the one side of this story is the social
responsibility to provide the block makers with the opportunity and ability to
provide work in these communities. The other side tells a story of
environmental destruction and the poisoning of the same employers and water.
The EPA (US Environmental
Protection Agency) sits with the same problem and has delayed an enforceable
act for years. They are under pressure from the politicians and industries
using coal and coal ash to not declare coal ash as a hazardous waste product. “Despite
the dangers revealed by the catastrophic ash spill at the Tennessee Valley
Authority’s Kingston plant in 2008, political and industry pressure has delayed
the adoption of the tough federal regulations needed to ensure safe disposal of
coal ash” says the Southern environmental law center. The argument is that
it will increase the price of electricity and it will restrict the industries
that use coal ash to produce products and recycling. Such a restriction might
put more pressure on the economy and cause an increase in unemployment.
On the other side
SELC and its
allies are urging EPA to implement a strong, enforceable rule that protects
groundwater, surface water, and communities near waste sites—particularly disadvantaged communities,
which are often the most vulnerable to coal ash pollution. In the absence of
strong federal safeguards, we must rely on an inconsistent patchwork of rules
in our states, some of which have tougher standards for handling household
garbage than they do for the disposal of coal ash.
Nearly every
major river in the Southeast has one or more lagoons on its banks holding
slurries of coal ash from power plants. Containing hundreds of thousands of
tons of toxin-laden waste,
these pools are often unlined
and have leaked arsenic, mercury,
thallium, selenium, and other contaminants into the rivers and the underlying
groundwater for years, if not decades. A report by the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency found that unlined coal combustion waste ponds
pose a cancer risk 900 times above acceptable levels. (Southern environmental
law center)
Coal ash
contains toxic chemicals including arsenic,
mercury and lead. State regulators have previously conceded that all of
Duke Energy's unlined ash dumps in the state are contaminating groundwater. EPA is proposing to regulate for the first time coal ash to address the
risks from the disposal of the wastes generated by electric utilities and
independent power producers. This after the Tennesse disaster.
EPA is
considering two possible options for the management of coal ash for public
comment. Both options fall under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act
(RCRA). Under the first proposal, EPA would list these residuals as special
wastes subject to regulation under subtitle C of RCRA, when destined for
disposal in landfills or surface impoundments. Under the second proposal, EPA
would regulate coal ash under subtitle D of RCRA, the section for non-hazardous
wastes. The Agency considers each proposal to have its advantages and
disadvantages, and includes benefits which should be considered in the public
comment period.
The root of the
coal ash dilemma, after all, is not an environmental issue. It’s an economic
issue First; the best time to enact meaningful environmental legislation is
immediately following a disaster. According to Professor Dave Gammon - dgammon@elon.edu.
Are we waiting for a disaster
before we act?
Two problems came
to my attention in the manufacturing of ash blocks. The first being the health
risk of Ash on workers and the environment.
The second
possible problem is the control of cement ash mixtures in the manufacturing
process. I have found a few blocks that weep black water. This is possibly
caused by a weak cement mixture, which does not bind the ash properly. The
distribution of substandard blocks held a serious health risk for the end user.
This risk increase in disadvantage areas, the moisture that ash blocks is now also contaminated with some toxic heavy
metals. In my experience ash blocks act in the same manner as a sponge, the
walls is always wet especially if the foundations was not sealed properly. In
disadvantage areas the builders are not taking proper measures to seal
foundations as it increase the building cost.
In conclusion political and financial pressure
has prevented the EPA of enforcing strict controls on coal ash. This means that
the environment and the protection thereof have a price. The lack of implementation
of strict rules is purely based on the amount of money generated by industries.
The question we need to ask is what the price for our heritage is?
Will SAPPI now
follow the corrupt world of intimidating industries or will they protect the
environment from the Toxic ash. Will they regulate the block makers to keep
this toxic ash properly, and the process of block manufacturing to ensure the
health of block yard workers and the public? It is true that ash block making
is an acceptable practice in the world, but who will enforce that the correct
cement ash mixtures are used to prevent ash seepage.
Social responsibility
does not stop with the supply of a product; it has a responsibility to the
health of the community and the environment using such products. SAPPI will
need to set proper standards and enforce these standards to protect the community;
they need to ensure that workers recycling the ash are medically protected. The
responsibility is not to comply with the standards only, it is to comply
responsible with the health requirements of the block industry, and to comply
with the needs of the environment.
The only option
that I can see is that SAPPI build an area lined to keep the coal ash,
surrounded by block makers manufacturing blocks on the controlled lined area,
ensure that they are South African workers from the area. Provide regular
medical tests on the workers and control the cement ash mixture. Run random wet
tests on blocks ensuring that no seepage takes place and improve the standards.
This will not only assist the micro economy but train and develop block yard in
the surrounding areas. Such a partnership between SAPPI and the block makers
will lead the industrial involvement of large companies in South Africa. The
project will be costly but beneficial to both the company and the block makers.
The lined storage facility must be constructed any way by SAPPI to protect
ground water and prevent seepage into the rivers and streams. There is
currently no evidence of lined storage facilities even at the fly ash
contaminated gypsum storage.
The other option
is for SAPPI to stop supplying Toxic ash to block makers, but still build a
proper lined facility to keep the toxic waste, before transporting it to NPC
(hope their facilities are up to standard)
Willie Beetge
