Question About Coal Stove

Hello all.
I have a question regarding old coal stoves. My grandfather has an old factory on a big parcel of land in Ontario here. This factory used to be heated using a coal furnace.(they now use a water boiler)
My father tells story's about going down to the basement of the factory to stoke the coal furnace with buckets of coal.
My grandfather recently passed away and the family would like to sell the factory and the land the factory is sitting on. However we are unsure about the possible pollutants that may be in the ground of the land from the old coal burning furnace and from simply having coal on premises.
I was just wondering if anyone on here could speak on this topic regarding possible ground pollutants. If it is a known fact that coal and old coal furnaces pollute the ground ans may require clean up before the land is sold? any information would be much appreciated.
I hope this is the correct place to ask this question. I apologize in advance if it is.
If more information is needed, I can ask my father more about the coal furnace and approxiamtelly how long ago they were still using it.
thanks very much for your time
Chris

Far from an expert, but my thoughts would wander to--something that comes from the ground, specifically coal, would not in any way pollute anything. Even with throwing my ashes in my garden area & tilling--I've had better growth the past couple years--filling pot holes with the ash & the grass come right back--hopefully your environmental people aren't as big of A-holes as ours are down here.

Pollutants? Like Toxic? I don't know of any from the coal or its ashes... But like Fred, I'm no expert.
Seems like if there were then coal wouldn't be a very good heat source.

Coal isnt a nerve agent, I cannot think of any reason that coal alone would pollute the ground.

When I was a kid all the cities around used to spread it on the streets in the winter, now that I'm in a rural area & on a dirt road we do the same.

Like anything else, high concentrations of anything (beyound the norm) might show traces of some elements that are not healthful to humans or other organic life forms. I've always used the old adage of all natural things in moderation and you'll keep things in balance. So I guess what I'm saying that the coal, in and of itself, wouldn't be any problem (unless it had been contaminated with something else). The coal ash, on the other hand, being the product of a physical change would hold higher consentrations of said trace elements. But unless you have a massive pile of coal ash sitting near your drinking water, etc...I don't think it is any problem. As Fred stated, we all use the ash to fill potholes or spread it out so that it doesn't concentrate in any large amounts in one place.

Recently in a local city they were replacing underground water lines near an old railroad bed. During excavation they came across a lot of ash that was dumped there by the railroads over a period of probably 75 or more years. They took samples and had them analyzed with the results being that there were no levels of toxic material that would require removal.

I am a little fuzzy on current US environmental laws but when I was involved in this about 20 years ago the first thing that is done is a Level One assessment. This involves a visual inspection of the area looking for signs of possible contamination. If there are none then the assessment would go to the next step.
In this step the assessors would take into consideration what the factory was producing and what materials were used during manufacturing. Back 40 years ago there was very little to no regulation on disposal of manufacturing waste so a lot of the smaller manufacturing operations would just dump the waste out the back door.

I have no knowledge of Canadian laws, if you have any doubts your best bet is to hire a consulting firm and have them look at the property.

Hey guys. Thank you very much for all the information. It is a great help!.

Keep us posted on the progress. I'll be curious as to the outcome & good luck with it.

Let's face facts. Coal ash contains some pollutants. That's the bad news. The good news is that it a very small amount. The problem is that when you have a very large amount of ash, like the ash residue from a coal fired power plant. Total up all the contaminants and there is reason to be concerned. But, for you, me, your fathers factory, it isn't an issue due to the factor of scale. There just wasn't enough coal burned to give enough of a contamination level to be concerned. Coal fired power plants burn millions of tons of coal per year. If we burn 5 -6 tons of coal per year, it would tale us 200-300,000 years to amass a pile of ashes to give a similar result. At 100 tons per year, which might be a good starting point to figure your fathers factory's use, would take 10,000 years for the same thing. At that level of ash, there is a problem. Now add to the mix that the level of contamination is just big enough to be measureable with a pile of ash that big. The thing that cracks me up most is the same people that are claiming coal is such an issue are the same ones who have been specifying coal fly ash be added to all municipal/ government contracts for concrete. To make the concrete more durable and strong. Does that mean that all the goverment agencies are contaminated by their own hand????????

being as both anthracite and bituminous coal are used to filter water, I would think it would not pollute.

tmckenzie wrote:being as both anthracite and bituminous coal are used to filter water, I would think it would not pollute.

It's not the coal he's worries about, it's the coal ash which is a different animal since it's like a distillate and concentrates any trace elements within.

I too am no expert but Coal is not a man made product like enriched uranium. It is a natural product like wood. I would doubt it is anything to worry about.