trending Market Intelligence /marketintelligence/en/news-insights/trending/nvzkpumz8js3ds5c0rsleg2 content esgSubNav
In This List

Coal ash data shows groundwater impacts, but utilities say public is not at risk

Podcast

Next in Tech | Episode 49: Carbon reduction in cloud

Blog

Using ESG Analysis to Support a Sustainable Future

Research

US utility commissioners: Who they are and how they impact regulation

Blog

Q&A: Datacenters: Energy Hogs or Sustainability Helpers?


Coal ash data shows groundwater impacts, but utilities say public is not at risk

New information showing groundwater contamination at coal ash storage sites across the country does not reveal a threat to public safety, and more testing has been planned to provide a fuller picture of the situation, according to some of the utilities releasing that information.

The data release came a day after the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency unveiled sweeping changes to the coal combustion residuals rule that proposed to lengthen deadlines and relax certain requirements for storing coal ash and closing coal ash ponds. Under the 2015 rule, utilities were subject to a March 2 deadline to publicly release data on potential groundwater pollution. That rule also created national standards for storing the residue created when coal is burned for power generation, and the EPA compiled all of the recently released data on its website.

SNL Image

Water extracted from a coal ash pond at Dominion Energy's Bremo Bluff power plant and subsequently cleaned awaits release at a treatment facility in Virginia in 2016.

Source: AP Image

SNL Image

A worker walks along a sealed coal ash basin at Dominion Energy's Chesapeake power plant in Virginia in 2016.

Source: AP Image

SNL Image

TV crews view a container of clean wastewater from a coal ash treatment facility at Dominion Energy's Bremo Bluff power plant in 2016.

Source: AP Image

Dominion Energy Inc. spokesman Robert Richardson said testing revealed groundwater impacts at some of the company's facilities that were examined, but further testing and analysis are required to determine whether cleanup is necessary. Reports were issued for 12 facilities across seven of Dominion's coal-fired power plants, and none identified any risk to the public, Richardson said, adding, "Additional ... work will be done to find out exactly what is occurring, and why."

The next round of sampling will include a more in-depth assessment of groundwater and a longer list of possible pollutants, Richardson said, stressing that the findings present no risk to public safety "since water on station property is not being used ... for drinking."

While the reports mark the first time Dominion has issued a compilation of coal ash data in response to the federal rule, Richardson said similar information has been released to West Virginia and Virginia environmental regulators in the past.

For its part, Duke Energy Corp. submitted compliance data for coal ash ponds and landfills in North Carolina, Indiana, Kentucky, Florida and South Carolina. A representative of Duke Energy, which previously has taken steps to address elevated levels of contaminants and chemical elements near its coal ash sites, also said the data submitted to the EPA is preliminary and the "official background levels for each constituent" have not yet been officially established.

"This is one step in the detailed process to safely close coal ash basins in ways that protect people and the environment," Duke Energy spokeswoman Erin Culbert said.

The 58 Duke Energy facilities governed by the EPA's coal ash rule are at various phases of testing and monitoring, but Culbert said groundwater contamination does not appear to be migrating off-site. Monitoring wells, which are located immediately next to the ash basin or landfill, "do not reflect groundwater conditions farther away or off plant property where neighbors are located," Culbert said. For instance, groundwater near the ash basin at the 2,078-MW Marshall power plant in North Carolina "is actually moving away from neighbors' wells," she added.

Duke Energy in November 2016 revealed plans to excavate the majority of ash ponds across its fleet to comply with federal regulations but leave ash in place at more than a dozen basins.

"We've been quite transparent about groundwater impacts immediately near ash basins, and we are well down the path of preparing to close ash basins," Culbert said. "While all this additional groundwater data is useful to gather, we are not waiting for this analysis to plan for basin closures."

American Electric Power Co. Inc. spokeswoman Melissa McHenry said her company's reports showed "some potential groundwater impacts" at 24 of 29 sites examined, but added that a documented high concentration of a monitored substance "does not mean that any groundwater protection standards are being violated or that drinking water is unsafe."

As with Duke Energy, McHenry said the samples examined by AEP so far were from near coal ash storage facilities where the impacts would be most significant and the company soon will test further from those sites. AEP also has hired a third party to evaluate whether contamination might be coming from other sources. That analysis is expected to be completed in April.

"If additional monitoring indicates that changes in groundwater quality are coming from our ash storage site, we will work with recognized experts and state agencies to develop a mitigation plan to address the impacts," McHenry said. That plan would be developed by November 2019 in consultation with the public, with implementation to begin by February 2020, she added.

Radioactive elements

Frank Holleman, a senior attorney with the Southern Environmental Law Center, or SELC, who focuses on water and coal ash issues, said his team still is combing through the thousands of pages of groundwater reports but so far those reports "confirm widespread groundwater contamination."

One especially striking data point is "the extent of radioactive contamination of groundwater at these coal ash sites." Utilities never before have been required to test for radioactive substances in groundwater near coal ash facilities, and the new data shows high levels of radium in some areas tested, Holleman said.

Culbert, however, pointed to a U.S. Geologic Survey report that says "radioactive elements in coal and fly ash should not be sources of alarm" and the vast majority of coal ash is not "significantly enriched in radioactive elements."

Coal ash basins and landfills subject to the rule generally sit next to major waterways and drinking water sources, and polluted water from those facilities is flowing into the nation's waterways, Holleman said. He expressed further concern that aging coal ash facilities have the potential to fail, much like what happened at Duke Energy's Dan River power plant in 2014 and the Tennessee Valley Authority's Kingston power plant in 2008.

Holleman said the SELC had been aware of contamination at Duke Energy sites in North and South Carolina but the group just learned from the reports that similar groundwater contamination may be occurring at coal ash facilities operated by Southern Co. subsidiary Alabama Power Co.

Alabama Power spokeswoman Amoi Geter said 150 locations at five of the company's plants were examined and "none of the results detected pose a risk to neighbors, nearby waterways or water sources." Alabama Power continues to make progress toward dewatering coal ash ponds and expects that all facilities will stop receiving new ash within the year, Geter added.

EPA seeks rule changes

As utilities were submitting their reports, the EPA proposed major changes to the underlying coal ash rule that would shift regulatory responsibility to states.

Holleman said the original coal ash rule for the first time placed stringent requirements on utilities to test groundwater and mandated that coal ash waste facilities cease operations if certain pollution limits were exceeded. But he warned that the EPA's proposed changes could compromise the coal ash rule's effectiveness because state environmental agencies might fail to step up and hold utilities to cleanup responsibilities without federal leadership. He said he also objects to the EPA's proposal to extend the deadline for unlined coal ash basins to stop taking additional deposits of ash or other waste material.

"These proposals would make a bad situation worse and promote additional pollution of groundwater," he said.

Dominion, AEP and other utilities said they still are examining the EPA's proposal but will keep their promises to close and clean up coal ash waste.

"We're moving forward as quickly as we can, and we're committed to getting this right," Richardson said.