Sierra Club’s Coal Ash Gambit

Coal ash pond at the Chesapeake Energy Center
Coal ash pond at the Chesapeake Energy Center

by James A. Bacon

The Sierra Club has filed a lawsuit charging that coal ash stored at Dominion Virginia Power’s shuttered coal plant in Chesapeake is leaking arsenic into the Elizabeth River. The environmental organization wants the U.S. courts to compel Dominion to scrap plans for burying the coal ash in place at four power stations around the state and to truck the material to lined landfills instead.

Earlier today, attorneys for the environmental group began presenting their case in the Richmond courtroom of U.S. District Court Judge John A. Gibney, advancing the argument that unsafe levels of arsenic found in sediment samples originated from underground water that migrated through the coal ash pits.

“These discharges of arsenic will continue indefinitely with no end in sight,” said Deborah Murray, the attorney representing the Sierra Club. “The only way to stop the pollution is to remove the ash to a lined landfill.”

Dominion countered that the Sierra Club’s arguments are totally unproven. The organization cherry picked “snippets” from the voluminous testing data filed with Virginia’s Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ), wore “blinders” to the mountain of evidence showing that water quality complies with the law, and offered a “tortured interpretation” of how the arsenic got from the coal ash to the surrounding waters, argued Dabney Carr for Dominion.

DEQ has consistently found Dominion to be in compliance over four decades, said Carr. “The goal of this suit is to overturn DEQ’s decision,” he added, addressing the judge. “The Sierra Club is asking you to substitute your judgment for the DEQ’s judgment.”

Dominion has been accumulating coal ash, the mineral residue from coal combustion, at the Chesapeake Energy Center for decades. Like other utilities, the company mixed it with water to keep the dust down and stored the material in lagoons. After years of study, the Environmental Protection Agency issued new standards last year for cleaning up coal ash. The first step is to de-water the ash, treat the water, and discharge it into rivers and streams. For the most part, Dominion has reached agreement with DEQ and environmental groups on how to do that.

The second step is to store the coal ash in a place where it will not continue to contaminate water supplies. Dominion proposes to consolidate the residue and cap it with an impermeable lining to prevent the infiltration of rain water. DEQ is studying those permits now.

Contending that a cap does nothing to stop the infiltration of groundwater, environmental groups have pushed Dominion to truck the material to lined landfills — a project that Dominion estimates would cost $3 billion. While some environmental groups focus their efforts on DEQ, the Sierra Club is going the federal route. The organization believes the lawsuit against Dominion is the first challenge of its kind to the Clean Water Act. If the group wins the case, it will set a precedent not only for all four of Dominion’s coal ash sites but for power companies across the country.

While the implications are national, the facts of the case are highly localized. And, as was clear from Murray’s presentation, Sierra Club’s case is circumstantial.

The Chesapeake facility sits upon land comprised of loose and sandy soils that allow water to travel through easily. The coal ash ranges from 15 to 30 feet thick, and the bottom of the pile varies in elevation from 16 feet above sea level to six feet below. A liner was placed between the disposal site and the ground but it is leaking, Murray said.

However, when asked by Judge Gibney how she knew the liner was leaking, she had no persuasive response.

The key evidence presented for the accumulation of arsenic came from a 2010 report commissioned by Dominion that analyzed sediment “cores” — cylindrical-shaped samples of creek and river bottom — to determine if there was “natural attenuation” of arsenic. (Natural attenuation is when nature takes care of the problem, in this case by binding the arsenic with iron to form a harmless substance.) Five of the samples at a depth of zero to three inches contained arsenic in excess of the permitted level of 36 micrograms per liter.

The Sierra Club cherry picked these data points from mountains of data collected from samples taken twice a year over decades, countered Carr. All tests of surface water, as opposed to sediment, have indicated arsenic levels at concentrations well below drinking water standards. Every water sample — 73 taken over the past thirteen years — were well below Virginia and EPA water quality standards for arsenic. Said Carr: “There is no evidence of arsenic in the surface waters.”

Where did the arsenic in the sediment come from if not from the nearby coal ash pits? Dozens of other industries release discharges in the Elizabeth River, said Carr, and some are known to release arsenic. The Sierra Club has offered no proof that the arsenic levels in found in the sediment differs from those elsewhere in the river. The group has conducted none of its own research and offers no additional evidence. It relied entirely upon data that DEQ used to find Dominion in compliance with the Clean Water Act — “the very same data and information DEQ has relied upon to conclude that Dominion is in compliance with its permit at CEC (the Chesapeake Energy Center).”


Share this article



ADVERTISEMENT

(comments below)



ADVERTISEMENT

(comments below)


Comments

10 responses to “Sierra Club’s Coal Ash Gambit”

  1. LarrytheG Avatar
    LarrytheG

    not difficult to use “tracers” to prove or disprove the “fingerprint” of the arsenic and other material.

    Surprised that Dominion has not already done this to settle the issue.

    Again – why does DVP seem to always choose the most disruptive methods to settle these issues?

    It’s almost as if they think if they go head to head with the Sierra Club – that the public will oppose the Sierra Club – and that’s a gamble in my view because even folks who don’t care for the Sierra Club and their tactics will still pay attention to the facts being developed and at some point – even if DVP will not use tracers – the Sierra Club will … and if the Sierra Club is right – how does that make DVP look?

    Again – the basic premise seems to be that even if the pile is sitting in the water table – that it won’t mix with it and then move… that’s not a safe assumption at all –

    and the 3 billion dollars – again – how does that pro-rate out over all ratepayers over 20-30 years?

    all of us that use electricity – own these costs. This is no different than all of us having to pay to clean up the Chesapeake Bay or storm water runoff or sewage treatment plants. we own those costs and most of us want to do the right and reasonable thing and not go back to the days where corporate polluters were allowed to demagogue the costs in an effort to avoid dealing with them.

    We need to do to DVP what the courts did to the Tobacco companies and Allied Chemical (Kepone). A class action suit to force them to create a fund to pay for these costs – if all they are going to do is one pitched battle after another to fight doing the right thing.

    If DVP won’t do the right thing – then we need to step in and force them.

    1. Larry, You go from “it shouldn’t be hard for Dominion to use tracers to prove or disprove” the Sierra Club’s theory to “we ought to force Dominion to create a fund for clean-up costs.” In other words, Dominion is guilty until proven innocent. Interesting theory of law you have there, big guy.

  2. CleanAir&Water Avatar
    CleanAir&Water

    I would like to know about ‘tracers’. If they are relatively easy and relatively accurate … the thought that they should be done sounds very reasonable … unless of course the company fears the clarification.

  3. Tracers could be a good idea. But I have another concern: that $3 billion sounds awfully high to me. Basically you are scooping up dirt and hauling it away. Same thing you do to build any large building’s basement. And the new storage site, which you can select based on optimum topography, needs a liner installed first. So what’s the big deal, cost-wise?

    That said, I think the Sierra Club has far bigger legitimate fish to fry. This is just a publicity stunt, a cheap shot, and an ugly one: at relatively low cost to them they get to say “we helped save Virginia from those traitors at DEQ and that evil power company.” Whereas Dominion is simply doing what it can within DEQ regs to be responsible at a reasonable cost to ratepayers.

  4. Yes it’s interesting, I posted about this yesterday on the prior thread.

    If I understand, EPA has already said utilities can go ahead and cap these old coal ash piles in place. Sierra Club is basically challenging that, saying that approach violates the Clean Water Act. It is potentially a fundamental ruling. I don’t think EPA’s cap-in-place directive violates the current status quo, but basically Sierra Club is saying going forward, this is unacceptable to pollute water in any way. However, as alluded to by Dominion, if we follow that idea to it’s logical conclusion, most human activities do cause some pollution. Let’s face it.

    1. LarrytheG Avatar
      LarrytheG

      Tbill – I could be wrong but I do not think the EPA has said that. I think what they said is that they have yet to decide if coal ash is classified as a hazardous waste.

      that’s not to say that it’s not waste and cannot contaminate ground water.

      I find it inconceivable that you’d take metal waste typically known to react with other things – like water – leave it in groundwater – and expect it to remain inert – Other states doubt that also.

      I’m more than willing to go by the facts – but when DVP itself is not interested in developing data using tracers and other technology – then why should we assume?

  5. LarrytheG Avatar
    LarrytheG

    I’m fine with the general standard established for coal ash – by other states like Md and NC or others.

    I’m not advocating a higher standard.

    tracers are also standard these days – commonly used near landfills when leaks are suspected.. they’are an easy thing to do and a quick way for DVP to rebut Sierra Club if the facts are on their side. One does wonder why DVP is not showing any serious effort to demonstrate there is no migration of contamination… in the first place.

    what I advocate “forcing” DVP to do – is to adopt industry standard approaches as well as to adopt and use current available technology for monitoring – VOLUNTARILY at the beginning to demonstrate their legitimate interests in going forward with what is right instead of the incremental trench fighting not giving an inch until forced.

    So, YES – if they are not going to fairly and legitimate engage an honest process to take the issue forward then – yes force them into compliance – as we have done in the past with other polluters who would not be responsible.

    And once again -most folks clean up the Chesapeake Bay – and pay their fair share of those costs – ditto with other efforts to restore and assure a reasonable environment – not a pristine one.

    I doubt the 3 billion dollar costs also – until and unless I see a more comprehensive accounting – and again – DVP can do this – on their own – as a responsible corporate steward or they can continue to play this pitched battle game where they play stupid PR games of obstruction and opposition unless and until forced to do what they should have done at the start -to start with.

    This is not a company trying to work cooperatively to arrive at reasonable compromise solutions – they’re behaving badly and they deserve to be dealt with – like the bad boys they have chosen to be.

    this issue should have been solved a long time ago – without all this really dumb stuff… Only a complete moron would believe you can leave a pile of coal ash or any material containing metal waste – sitting directly in the water table – and it would not react with water and/or migrate over time.

    But it takes a special breed of stupid to basically argue that point – at the same time you refuse to use any available diagnostic tools and current site cleanup literature to actually develop the facts -from which to fashion a compromise path forward.

    As I said – give DVP the opportunity to collaborate a solution that is acceptable to the stakeholders – or admit that DVP has no intention of doing that – and impose a plan – as has had to be in the past with similar irresponsible corporate players.

    We should have NEVER reached the point where the Sierra Club is in court to start with – a reasonable Corporation would work with the more moderate players – proactively – to come up with an agreement – that precludes less moderate players from getting involved…

  6. Rowinguy Avatar
    Rowinguy

    The Sierra Club filed suit against Dominion before the EPA finalized its standards. The lawsuit was not “filed” yesterday, as the first sentence in the article implies; it began proceeding to trial beginning yesterday. Notice of intent to sue was submitted to Dominion in December 2014, if memory serves, while the EPA standards regarding coal ash disposal were published in Spring of 2015. As TBill notes above, this appears to be a collateral attack by the Sierra Club on those standards.

  7. LarrytheG Avatar
    LarrytheG

    The Sierra Club is not the only group that is concerned about “cap in place” Several groups including the SELC are involved and basically of the same mind with respect to concerns.

    “cap in place” without testing right now for contamination and without setting a baseline and requirements for future monitoring is basically an irresponsible approach that seeks to essentially exempt future monitoring and future remediation if the “cap in place” does not actually result in less or no contamination.

    Basically the power companies want a waiver on any future responsibility – ie “cap in place and walk away”.

    A reasonable compromise would be to adopt equivalent safety standards for groundwater right now – if the water meets specs – fine – if it does not – you got to fix it.

    and then the responsibility does not end. You monitoring continuously – and as long as th groundwater is fine – you’re good – if it starts to show increasing contamination – again – you’re on the hook to do something about it.

    you do not get a “bye” because you were allowed to do nothing in the past because it was okay but now – it’s got increasing contamination but you are exempt because you did not have to clean up initially.

    When you contaminate groundwater – it’s not a temporary condition – it will persist for decades – even centuries and preclude future use of it for future generations.

    At the same time we’re arguing about 3 billion for cleanup – we’ve agreed to spend 20-30 billion to clean up the Chesapeake Bay. Anyone who thinks ground water does not mingle with river flows – needs to do some more book reading.. it does… anything on the surface and/or bleeding into the groundwater – is contamination that finds it’s way into the rivers and the bay.

    once again – to be clear – we’re not after pristine – but we did not end up with the Bay getting the way it is now by one or two irresponsible acts of pollution – either. It took decades of actions like we’re seeing right now with the coal ash issue – incremental – but cumulative , In fact, we know now that it will take massive widespread efforts at reducing storm water runoff to continue any real progress. Each one contributes just a little in the bigger picture – but add them up and…………

    if we can pay 20-30 billion to clean up the bay – don’t tell me that 3 billion for protecting ground water and preventing contamination is too expensive.

    It’s a number I doubt to start with anyhow, when we know that every site has rail access and once on a rail car – the ash can go to any site with a liner even existing landfills.

    this is stupid. It’s not that hard to get this addressed. It’s certainly no where near as hard as it will be to clean up the Bay.

    DMV should be just ashamed. They’re acting like a unprincipled corporate polluter from the 1950’s…. rather than a modern-day responsible corporate citizen who really does want to actually develop the facts – and be guided by them in their actions and accountability to taxpayers as well as ratepayers.

  8. …”The opening day of a trial revolving around more than 3 million tons of coal ash in Chesapeake quickly sank into the muck –…”

    Sierra Club is apparently saying climate change will cause sea level to rise and leach more contaminants out of the coal ash. But without knowing the site specifics, directionally, I am not as worried about environmental impact of contamination of brackish sea water. The bigger general concern would probably be contamination of upstream fresh water and drinking water supplies. If I had to build a “clean” coal plant, I’d put it on the East coast on the ocean. It’s not really “clean” but the contaminants are heading out to the deep blue ocean.

Leave a Reply