Method used for closing coal ash ponds linked to problems

Samples from monitoring wells associated with the coal ash landfill, one of four pits used to dispose of coal waste from the Belews Creek Steam Station, show that such pollutants as arsenic, boron, cadmium, iron, manganese, nitrate, selenium, sulfate and other elements exceeded state safe-water limits.

"As shown in Table 2 and Table 3, the analytical results for … constituents at MW2-7, MW2-9, and MW-7 and surface water sample locations SW-1A and SW-2 are elevated and indicate impacts to the groundwater at these locations from the landfill," the report says, referring to monitoring wells.

One monitoring well – referred to as OB-9 – was installed adjacent to the landfill to determine whether pollutants were “solely attributed to the ash landfill," according to the report. Samples from that monitoring well show that cadmium, manganese, selenium, sulfate and “total dissolved solids” exceeded state groundwater standards.

Duke Energy confirmed the report showed that pollutants exceeded state limits at the Pine Hall landfill.

However, according to company officials, the findings do not entirely discredit the cap-in-place method, one that was condoned in the bill approved by the House in a vote of 84-13. All but one House member of the Forsyth delegation – Rep. Evelyn Terry, a Democrat – voted for the bill. Rep. Ed Hanes, a Democrat, and Republican Reps. Donny Lambeth, Debra Conrad and Julia Howard voted for it.

“We know from our experiences at various plant sites that groundwater, soil and other conditions are very site specific,” Duke Energy spokeswoman Erin Culbert said in an email.

“At the Roxboro site, for example, a cap has been in place for more than 10 years, and we’ve seen substantial improvement. The company installed a lined landfill on top of an existing ash basin and landfill in 2003, and the liner serves to cap the ash beneath it. Since the landfill cover was installed, monitoring wells have shown a considerable downward trend,” she said.

Groundwater flows slowly, she said.

“It will take time to attenuate, no matter what basin closure method we implement at a particular site,” she said.

In fact, the 2012 report also suggests that the cap over the Pine Hall landfill will likely make a difference.

“With reduced infiltration, the groundwater concentration of constituents attributable to fly ash … will likely continue to decrease over time. The time frame and magnitude of reductions in concentrations for these constituents is uncertain. Therefore, HDR recommends groundwater monitoring be continued on a semiannual basis to monitor the performance of the engineered cover system,” the report says.

Capping key issue

The cap-in-place method is central to one of the key issues in the coal ash debate.

Before the House vote on the coal ash legislation, Duke had already agreed to close its coal ash ponds. Duke’s spill in February of about 39,000 tons of coal sludge into the Dan River had spurred House and Senate members to propose coal ash legislation in the spring. One of the key questions was whether the closure method would adequately protect North Carolina’s surface water and groundwater. Two closure methods have been discussed above others: cap-in-place or full excavation.

Duke, all along, preferred the option of leaving coal ash in unlined pits, possibly at 10 of its 14 power plant sites, and capping the coal ash in place.

“The company is performing engineering and scientific studies to determine if capping in place is recommended for some locations or if excavating and relocating ash is a better solution,” Culbert said. “Monitoring and post-closure care will be included in the company's site-specific closure plan recommendations, which will be provided to state regulators for approval.”

Conservation groups prefer that Duke excavate the coal ash at all 14 sites and put it in lined landfills. While Duke says that cap-in-place would be safe, conservationists say that pollutants in the coal ash left in capped ponds would eventually seep into groundwater and contaminate it – as has been documented by the Pine Hall landfill.

“This (legislation) leaves ongoing contamination in place – and that is a major policy shift for North Carolina,” said D.J. Gerken, a senior attorney with the Southern Environmental Law Center.

The legislation would also allow Duke to circumvent a Wake County Superior Court judge’s ruling that state law requires the immediate removal of sources of contamination, conservationists say.

Space and Cost

Why the General Assembly, Gov. Pat McCrory and the state Department of Environment and Natural Resources have not required Duke Energy to excavate the coal ash can be attributed primarily to two things: Space and cost.

The space required to do what conservationists support – excavate the coal ash – is limited, according to state Rep. Chuck McGrady, R-Henderson. “We do not have enough landfill space to do that,” he said in the House floor. In North Carolina, Duke has more than 100 million tons of coal ash at its 14 plant sites, according to company officials.

The cost of excavating coal ash from the 33 coal ash pits at Duke’s 14 power plant sites could range from $6 billion to $10 billion over as many as three decades, according to the company, which reported operating revenues of $24.6 billion in 2013 alone. The cap-in-place method would be the least costly – $2.5 billion – and would take much less time.

Cost was a deciding factor for Terry, the Forsyth Democrat who voted against the bill.

Terry said after the House session that while the bill “deserves credit” as a first step in dealing with the state’s coal ash problem, it falls short of protecting consumers from shouldering the cost of cleanup, whatever it may turn out to be.

“I always feel for the little guy,” Terry said. “It (the bill) doesn’t really look to the consumer. I don’t know what the cost of electricity is going to be. I just don’t want to place an undue burden on the consumer.”

McGrady, a Republican who has a record as a conservationist, tried to muster support for the bill on the House floor, saying that it was not ideal but a good first step.

In February, he told the Journal that he supported excavation: “Long term, we’ve got to deal with coal ash ponds. This is Chuck McGrady’s opinion. I can’t talk for Sen. Tom Apodaca – simply capping coal ash ponds is not the solution.” But the bill passed Wednesday does move the state ahead, he said. For example, ash pits that lie in water tables could not be listed as a low priority, according to the bill.

That point of contention, something which McGrady said he considered important, got in the bill because House negotiators conceded ground to the Senate on the matter of who would pick up the cost, he said.

High priority pits would be closed earlier.

Amy Adams, N.C. campaign coordinator for Appalachian Voices, said the Belews Creek ash pits should be fast-tracked.

“I believe Belews should be on the list for high priority due to the inherent risk posed by size of the impoundment with a high hazard dam rating. In addition, the community is surrounded by not only the 342 acre -- 4 billion gallon -- wet ash impoundment, but also two dry ash landfills (which are lined) and a large unlined landfill (Pine Hall),” she said.

In the end, the bill is a work in progress, a compromise among GOP House and Senate leaders that gets the ball rolling.

“While some might have wanted more through these negotiations, we were at risk for no bill. So this is a good start. And if more needs to be done in the future, I am confident more will be done,” said Lambeth, one of the Forsyth Republicans in the House.

http://www.journalnow.com/news/state_region/method-used-for-closing-coal-ash-ponds-linked-to-problems/article_b7124f4b-ecef-5387-9b10-1ae6c7903464.html