An imperfect but wise course on coal ash disposal
Published May 4, 2015
Editorial by Burlington Times-News, May 3, 2015.
Let’s start by saying the world isn’t perfect. Most are aware of this. But many still refuse to acknowledge it anyway.
So count us among those who blinked when a coal ash landfill was proposed for Wilmington and ultimately Eden. And then we looked a little harder and thought about the highly imperfect world in which we live.
After a closer look at the details and hearing from folks who know a lot more about the issue than we do, an encased and lined landfill may be the best option to dispose of the 7.2 million tons of toxic coal ash currently sitting in unlined basins operated by Duke Energy.
Though called a landfill, that’s like calling a yacht a boat. The new basin will be lined with clay and then a synthetic barrier will line the clay before a leeching material and the coal ash are added. The landfill then will be topped with a synthetic liner, protective soil and vegetation. Groundwater monitoring wells will be installed around the landfill to detect any leaks.
The ash stored at the plant now is the byproduct of the former coal-fired steam plant that operated at the Sutton Plant near Wilmington. In 2013, the plant switched to a natural gas unit. The old coal plant is being demolished, but the ash remains behind in unlined and uncovered basins.
In March, the state hit Duke with a $25.1 million fine for groundwater contamination tied to leaks at the Sutton ash ponds. Duke is appealing the fine, which is the largest environmental penalty in state history. Duke faces other fines and lawsuits related to leaks at several sites, including the massive one in Eden last year that dumped toxic ash into the Dan River.
The litigation and other regulatory and legal issues will play themselves out. But right now the priority for all involved should be to stop any leaks that can be stopped and get all the ash into stable and safe disposal sites.
The landfill proposal makes sense for several reasons:
1. Time is of the essence. This might not be the perfect solution, but it will be a huge undertaking and Duke needs to get moving on it before there is more contamination or another major spill. I think we’re keenly aware of the impact the spill had in neighboring Eden.
2. The ash does not have to be hauled off site. If it were to be disposed of somewhere else, 7.2 million tons of toxic coal ash would have to be hauled along state roads.
3. This plan keeps the ash on Duke property and the utility remains responsible for it.
The Southern Environmental Law Center, which has sued Duke, likes what it sees:
“In terms of the design and nature of a landfill, it’s a tremendous improvement in how the ash is stored,” said Frank Holleman of the center.
Placing dry ash in lined storage well away from rivers, he said, is “what we have been advocating for, and tremendous progress.”
State and local permits still will be needed to build the landfill in Wilmington and another one at Duke’s plant in Eden.
Finally, we should insist that Duke stockholders pay for the cost of the cleanup as well as any fines or settlements. As a utility, Duke is regulated by the state, and any attempt to pass the cost onto customers should be identified and stopped.
Assuming there are no surprises, this looks like the best and most expeditious option. It’s not perfect but then again, what is?
The sooner it's done, the better.
