Recent Supreme
Court decisions have been seen to weaken regulatory powers and deference, but
the EPA was recently vindicated in a U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of
Columbia Circuit decision to dismiss challenges to a series of enforcement
actions on coal ash. Some utilities and power plant owners were seeking to further
delay compliance with coal ash pond requirements. One of these coal ash slurry
ponds that will be affected is about 30 minutes from where I live, and that
plant may be where my power is sourced.
Coal ash is
the post-combustion ash from power plants that is stored as a slurry in ponds
that can be very large. Burning coal produces large amounts of it. Combustion
concentrates the toxic heavy metals in the ash, also known as residuals. Inside
Climate News noted:
“As of 2012, more than 470 coal-fired electric
utilities in 47 states and Puerto Rico had already generated about 110 million
tons of coal ash, one of the nation’s largest industrial waste streams,
according to the EPA.”
EPA identified over one hundred power plants with over 160 coal ash storage ponds that are very close to or already in contact with underground drinking water sources.
In 2015 EPA
enacted new Coal Combustion Residuals (CCR) rules. CCR refers to several waste
materials from coal combustion and abatement, including fly ash, bottom ash,
boiler slag, and flue gas desulfurization sludge. Fly ash from combustion is by
far the major component. Unlined ponds were originally required to be excavated
and lined by April 2019. In 2018 the compliance deadline was extended to
October 2020. The deadline was then extended to April 2021. Most coal plant owners
and utilities have complied or submitted acceptable compliance plans. Some have sought to challenge the rules through
litigation.
There is no
doubt that coal ash getting into surface water or groundwater is a very serious
environmental health concern. I wrote about this in 2020 for my 2021 book
Sensible Decarbonization:
“According to Environmental Energy Project and
Earthjustice 90% of groundwater monitoring wells around coal ash facilities
near three-quarters of U.S. coal plants “disclosed unsafe levels of at least
one coal ash pollutant, including arsenic, lithium, and other contaminants.”
{as well as arsenic, lead, mercury, selenium, radium, lead, beryllium, and
cadmium}. The CCR rule mandated that groundwater tests be filed. It did not
mandate, however, that drinking water sources near coal ash pits be tested.
Several pits are known to be leaking and some major leaks have occurred,
dumping large quantities of sludge into local rivers that can accumulate in
sediment, damage aquatic wildlife, and make its way up the food chain. Coal ash
cleanup can be very costly, reaching into the billions per facility,..”
“The EPA also changed the definition of unlined pits to
include clay-lined pits which means more ash will have to be excavated. {This
change to more stringent rules was done during the Trump administration under
EPA chief Andrew Wheeler} Regarding the rule extension Wheeler noted “The
public will also be better informed as EPA makes facility groundwater
monitoring data more accessible and understandable.”
Earthjustice claimed in 2022 that coal ash pond owners were attempting to delay and avoid compliance through the following means:
1) They claim the culprit is other coal ash on
their property that isn’t regulated due to a loophole;
2)
They blame some other “unnamed source” or
"naturally occurring" chemicals for contaminating groundwater with
the same coal ash contaminants that are leaking from their dumps;
3)
They use tainted water samples near dirty
locations on their property as “background” to show that the contaminated water
near their regulated coal ash dumps is not much worse; and
4)
They post “cleanup plans” on their website but
never actually initiate cleanup, even years after posting, despite the fact
that the federal rule requires plants to choose a cleanup remedy “as soon as
feasible.”
EPA requires
that owners of coal ash ponds or CCRs comply with federal regulations or with
state regulations that EPA deems are as protective as federal requirements. EPA
has approved three states’ plans for CCR compliance, but Alabama’s plan was rejected
as not meeting those requirements. The main issue was the state's much cheaper plan to dewater
the slurry and then cap it with a synthetic liner to prevent rainwater from
getting in. This is much cheaper than the preferred, or rather, required method
of “clean closure” where the ash is removed from the impoundment to a lined
landfill. Ash is used in some industrial products, such as concrete. Apparently,
after capping some ponds, groundwater monitoring wells continued to show high concentrations
of heavy metals. Thus, Alabama was denied state primacy for CCR remediation. EPA
has offered to work with the state to develop an acceptable plan.
EPA is focused
on cleaning up the ponds that are actually in contact with groundwater that is
close to drinking water sources. Most coal plants are built near a water source
due to the need for water to make steam to run the turbines. Thus, many of these
ponds are on lowlands and dug below the water table so that there can be very
good contact with groundwater aquifers. The Biden administration EPA changed
the rules to require legacy ponds as well as newer ones to comply with the rules.
Utilities in Georgia and Alabama have defied the EPA’s change by arguing that the
rules require no infiltration into the ash and so synthetic covers should be
sufficient. They interpret “infiltration” to mean infiltration only by
rainwater, rather than infiltration by groundwater into the ash as well, which
is how EPA interprets infiltration.
A group of
utility companies filed suit against the EPA to argue that groundwater contact was
not implied in the rule. EPA made clear that it was implied. In late June 2024,
the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit dismissed
industry challenges to these enforcement actions on coal ash. Now they will
have to comply. However, some of these utilities and states may well be holding
out hope for a Trump win where a new EPA could easily re-interpret the rules to
allow for top liners only. Either way, there will be some improvement in the
toxicity of adjacent groundwater. Unfortunately, those toxins can stay in
groundwater for a long time and move closer to drinking water wells. Thus, the
better long-term solution is to fully line them. However, the high cost that
could be passed to ratepayers (including possibly me) is worth considering. Since
many of these coal plants are old and scheduled for retirement, there is little
upside to them, and the requirements make decommissioning very expensive.
References:
What
is a liquid? Utilities sue to avoid coal ash cleanup — and lose. Gautama Mehta.
Grist. July 9, 2024. What is a liquid? Utilities sue to
avoid coal ash cleanup — and lose (msn.com)
Court
tosses coal ash enforcement challenge in win for EPA. Miranda Willson.
Politico. E&E News. Green Wire. June 28, 2024. POLITICO Pro | Article | Court tosses
coal ash enforcement challenge in win for EPA
EPA finally takes on abandoned coal ash ponds — but it
might be too late. Gautama Mehta. Grist. May 1, 2024. EPA takes on abandoned coal ash
ponds, but it might be too late | Grist
101 Coal Plants With Toxic Sludge Threatening Our
Drinking Water. Earthjustice. June 14, 2024. 101 Coal Plants With Toxic Sludge
Threatening Our Drinking Water - Earthjustice
EPA Formally Denies Alabama’s Plan for Coal Ash Waste.
Lee Hedgepeth. Inside Climate News. May 23, 2024. EPA Formally Denies Alabama’s Plan
for Coal Ash Waste - Inside Climate News
No comments:
Post a Comment