A group representing the Environment North Carolina Research and Policy Center has been going door to door asking people to send an email to Gov. Pat McCrory demanding that he close existing coal ash ponds and move all the coal ash to new landfills. This group knocked on my door a few weeks ago telling me that coal ash was polluting water sources and threatening the health of many North Carolinians.
Seeing this coal ash story everywhere in the news, I am not sure what to make of their stance. Before signing their petition and joining their email listserv, it would be a good idea to get familiar with the context and specifics of the controversy over the cleanup of coal ash ponds in North Carolina.
Coal ash is a byproduct of electricity generation at coal-fired power plants. In addition to being highly toxic, it is the second largest type of waste generated in the U.S. Enough coal ash is produced in the country to fill between 55 and 70 Bank of America Stadiums. Typically, coal ash is stored in ponds or in landfills. According to the Sierra Club, there are over 1,100 coal ash sites in the country, with 32 of them in 14 locations across North Carolina holding a total of 108 million tons of ash.
In February 2014, North Carolina witnessed an environmental disaster of unprecedented magnitude in the history of the state. An estimated 39,000 tons of coal ash and 27 million gallons of contaminated water spilled from an unlined waste pond into the Dan River. Crews took nearly a week just to stop the spill, which threatened environmental health and the safety of nearby communities. To give you an idea of the magnitude of the potential negative impacts from the spill, a 2014 study estimated that the monetary damage caused could exceed $300 million. As of May of this year, Duke Energy had already agreed to pay around $102 million in federal and state fines related to violations of environmental and public health law.
Following the Dan River spill, the NC General Assembly enacted the first comprehensive coal ash management law in the country, banning new coal ash ponds and ordering Duke Energy, the operator and manager of the sites, to close all of its 32 ash ponds by 2029.
The Department of Environmental Quality is in charge of coal ash management decisions. The agency’s favored policy option is to close all impoundments and transfer the 108 million tons of coal ash into new lined landfills. Environmentalist groups generally prefer this route.
However, critics of this stance, including Duke Energy and McCrory, argue that scientific evidence does not support the DEQ’s position. In an Op-Ed in the News and Observer, David Fountain, president of Duke Energy North Carolina, invoked well sampling and groundwater data that has been allegedly verified by independent experts demonstrating that coal ash basins are not affecting the quality of drinking water from nearby sources. Therefore, instead of closing and relocating the coal ash to new lined landfills, the opposing side proposes storing the ash on site after capping current ponds with expensive and technologically superior liners that are thought to keep the soil surface isolated from the coal ash for hundreds of years.
In defense of the DEQ and its supporters, there are instances where extremely precautionary approaches may be preferred — particularly when long-term effects of risks are unknown. However, in the case of coal ash, it may be preferable to postpone costly preventive efforts until more scientific evidence sustaining the existence of high risk becomes available.
According to former high ranking members of the North Carolina Coal Ash Management Commission, digging up coal ash ponds that have been dormant for decades can do more environmental damage than good. Also, closing current storage sites and moving the ash may entail health and environmental threats to communities neighboring the new landfills. Finally, acknowledging that emptying one of the state’s coal ash impoundments would take more than 800,000 truck trips — equating to 100 trucks per day for 22 years, according to Fountain. Evidently, the simple transportation of the coal ash from current storage ponds to new landfills would impose important social costs such as road degradation, worsened air quality and more noise.
If you are still wondering whether or not you want to email McCrory telling him to move his ash, consider that the only thing that’s close to certainty in the case of coal ash management in North Carolina is that Duke Energy is required to either restore current sites or clean them up and relocate the material to new landfills within the next 15 years.
Surely, “high-risk” coal ash ponds should be dismantled. Yet, allowing Duke Energy to cap some of the less risky basins would reduce costs and accelerate the clean-up of the coal ash in the state. Excavating 100 percent of the ash is not the best move to protect North Carolinians and their environment from the risks imposed by coal ash basins. However, determining the best move is much more difficult.
