Toxic Coal Ash Disposal Proves Costly and Hazardous, Duke Energy's Sutton Lake Contamination Questioned

1-DSC09675
on

A new report out fromย Wake Forest University concludes that coal ash waste from Duke Energyโ€™s Sutton coal plant in Wilmington, NC is elevating levels of selenium pollution in nearby Sutton Lake.ย The lake, prized by fishermen for its largemouth bass population, has been contaminated, according to aย studyย released today by Prof. Dennis Lemly, Research Associate Professor of Biology at Wake Forest, with high levels of selenium. Selenium has been linked to deformities in fish โ€“ includingย two-headed troutย โ€“ and can cause a condition known asย selenosisย if people consume high enough doses in their food or drinkingย water.

Several conservation groups, including the Sierra Club and the Southern Environmental Law Center, which joined the University in announcing the findings, filed suit against Duke Energy Progress, Inc. this summer,ย arguingย that pollution from the Sutton plant’s coal ash is โ€œkilling a regional fishing lake and is threatening a communityโ€™s drinkingย water.โ€

Theย new report, which found that the coal ash pollution killsย over 900,000 fish and deforms thousands more in Sutton Lake each year,ย is likely to bolster the plaintiffs’ case in thatย suit.

The research also highlights one of the most fundamental problems with American energy policy: policy-makers and the public have been unwilling to recognize the true costs of the fuels we use to makeย electricity.

Fracking has allowed American drillers to tap previously inaccessible resources driving down the current selling price down dramatically since 2008, but the hidden and long-terms costs are starting toย become clearย whereย climate change, air and water pollution are concerned. Theย ongoing catastropheย at the Fukishima power plant hints at the risks and expense of nuclear power. And oil seems far cheaper until youย add inย theย continuing costย of spills like theย Deepwater Horizonย in the Gulf ofย Mexico.

But for a particularly good example of these hidden costs, oftenย externalizedย by the companies that incur them, consider coal ash. Much of the electricity in the U.S. comes from burning coal, the dirty byproduct of which isย coal ashย โ€“ the second largest waste stream country. The largest waste stream is the debris from coal mining itself. The cost of disposing all this highly toxic waste is rarely taken into account when the advocates of fossil fuels offer argue economics, in part because producers have often found ways to shift the costs from their books to theย public.

There are two main ways that the waste from coal-fired power plants is typically handled. Both are expensive and dangerous. One is storing the waste inย wastewater impoundmentsย and landfills; the second is selling the ash to beย re-usedย by otherย businesses.

Much of the over 140 million tons of coal ash produced by utilities across the U.S. in a given year is shipped to landfills or mixed with water and transported by pipeline to massive wastewater impoundments, where it is left to sit. As coal-fired power plants areย increasingly shutteredย โ€“ or asย catastrophes strikeย โ€“ efforts to clean up some of these impoundment lakes are beginning. The cost, both in dollars and in human health, isย striking.

Three recent lawsuits highlight just how costly the risky practice of storing coal ash in pits canย be.

Recently, over 50 residents of Hancock County, West Virginia,ย suedย coal company FirstEnergy over contamination fromย Little Blue Run, the countryโ€™s largest unlined wastewater impoundment. This sprawling wastewater dump was first built in 1974 on the Pennsylvania-West Virginia border and it currently leaks so much arsenic-laced coal ash slurry that homes in the county haveย found their yards floodedย and their foundationsย shifted.

Although clean-up efforts will begin in 2017, residents of that area will be negatively affected by the ash slurry for at least the next 100 years, the lawsuit alleges, and groundwater pollution might not peak until 50 to 70 years from now. FirstEnergy currently projects that cleanup will cost the company more than $133ย million.

But their current plan cuts a lot of corners. Pennsylvaniaโ€™s Department of Environmental Protectionย describedย a string of over 160 deficiencies in that plan, many of them major, in a 29-page letter to FirstEnergy sent October 3rd. And the $133 million price tag leaves out the costs currently borne by those living in the area, which the lawsuit aims toย recoup.

For example, Pennsylvania regulatorsย estimateย that if the dam dividing Little Blue Run from the Ohio River were to give way, as many as 50,000 lives could be lost โ€“ a concern which is partly responsible for the regionโ€™s plunging property values, residentsย allege.

Another lawsuit, filed in September by the Southern Environmental Law Center, alleges that coal giant Duke Energy isย dragging its heelsย on cleaning upย coal ash impoundmentsย as it shuts down coal-fired power plants across the state. State regulators have also sued Duke over a bevy of coal-ash tied groundwater contaminants like arsenic and lead from the Sutton Plant that they concluded have put the drinking water for many residents of Chapel Hill, NC at risk,ย sayingย the ash โ€œposes a serious danger to the health, safety, and welfare of the people of the State of North Carolina and serious harm to the water resources of theย State.โ€ย 

Local public utilities expect to contribute $472,000 to a new water line to bring clean drinking water to people whose supplies were contaminated by coalย ash.

โ€œThere is no reason that the local community should be paying almost half a million dollars to make up for Dukeโ€™s illegal pollution,โ€ย saidย  Kemp Burdette, a representative of Cape Fear Riverkeeper which joined the SELC in the suit. โ€œDuke should pay the full cost and should clean up itsย pollution.โ€

Yet another recent lawsuit highlights some of the costs to human health that can emerge when pits fail. In 2008, aย burst wastewater impoundmentย at the Tennessee Valley Authorityโ€™s Kingston plant near Knoxville, TN,ย spewedย 5.4 million cubic yards of coal ash sludge into the Emory River and onto nearby land. The TVAย contendsย that the mercury, asbestos and arsenic-laden sludgeย is harmless. However, over two dozen workers hired as part of the $1.2 billion clean-up effortย sued the one of the contractorsย involved this summer for damages related to health issues they developed after handling the ash, including respiratory problems, heart conditions and rashes. Workers say their requests for protective equipment were turned down by bosses, and at one point, they were told that โ€œyou could drink fly ash daily and suffer no adverse healthย effects.โ€

Tests by the Environmental Protection Agency show that coal ash contains a range of dangerous substances andย radioactive materials, though the industry has longย arguedย that levels were so low that coal ash should be viewed as comparable to backyard dirt. But in 2009,ย improved EPA testing methodsย showed that coal ash in fact exceeded hazardous waste thresholds. In 2010, the EPA announced that they were considering classifying coal ashย as hazardous wasteย โ€“ but that rule is still under consideration and the coal industry hasย lobbied hardย to water down rules and prevent theirย passage.

The hazards of handling the waste make the alternative to storing ash in pits all the more alarming. For years, coal companies have been selling their waste for re-use. They even cast this process as a form of โ€œrecycling.โ€ The Obama administration refers to the handling of the ash in this fashion as โ€œbeneficial useโ€.

Some of the coal ash is sold as construction fill, where it is used to build highway embankments or building foundations (check out this 2010ย 60 Minutes programย on the consequences of using coal as as fill in part of aย golf-course).

But itโ€™s also found in aย striking arrayย of household goods โ€“ from drywall to bowling balls to carpets, and even lipstick. An investigation by DeSmog found that cities or towns in Pennsylvania, Ohio, New Mexico, Missouri, Oklahoma, Virginia, Illinois, and Colorado have sprayed the toxic waste on roads to combat winter ice andย snow.

Until 2010, the EPA actively promoted the re-use of coal ash in other products through its Coal Combustion Products Partnership, helping to create anย $11 billion industryย in re-using the ash. In 2011, aย scathing reportย by the EPAโ€™s own internal watchdog, the Inspector Generalโ€™s office,ย faulted the EPAย for failing to complete a single safety review on over 50 million tons of coal ash sold in the U.S. eachย year.

That year, EPA announced it would conduct risk assessments โ€“ but since then, itโ€™s been radio silence from the agency and environmental advocates say they suspect the scope of the assessments has been narrowed and that the agency is dragging its heels on completing its research. The EPA has yet to announce a timeline for finalizing itsย rules.

Unfortunately, in the meantime, the health risks associated with the ash are likely to get more severe. One of the unintended consequences of air regulation at coal-fired power plants, designed to prevent mercury from entering the atmosphere, is that the coal ash produced after EPA‘s air regulations kick in will be laced with even higher levels of toxic solidย waste.

If American energy policy is going to be rational, the costs associated with disposing the waste produced by each fuel must be taken into account. And in that respect, renewable energy sources like wind and solar looks far more attractive than fossilย fuel.

โ€œIf coal power generators had to responsibly handle their wastes,โ€ย saidย Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility Executive Director Jeff Ruch, โ€œcoal would not be so much cheaper than solar and other renewable powerย sources.โ€

Photo Credit:ย Land of Ash. Ash waste produced by burned coal in a power plant, viaย Shutterstock.

1-DSC09675
Sharon Kelly is an attorney and investigative reporter based in Pennsylvania. She was previously a senior correspondent at The Capitol Forum and, prior to that, she reported for The New York Times, The Guardian, The Nation, Earth Island Journal, and a variety of other print and online publications.

Related Posts

on

DeSmog estimates raise questions over climate benefits as EU officials consider whether the technology should qualify for billions of euros in subsidies.

DeSmog estimates raise questions over climate benefits as EU officials consider whether the technology should qualify for billions of euros in subsidies.
Analysis
on

Experts accuse Farageโ€™s party of a โ€˜deliberate campaign of misinformation about climate changeโ€™ in the House of Commons.

Experts accuse Farageโ€™s party of a โ€˜deliberate campaign of misinformation about climate changeโ€™ in the House of Commons.
on

A Conservative peer and former UK trade advisor were among those who spoke at the summit.

A Conservative peer and former UK trade advisor were among those who spoke at the summit.
on

All Conservative appointees to the Board of Trade have been binned by the new Labour government.

All Conservative appointees to the Board of Trade have been binned by the new Labour government.