After months of debate and deadlock, the N.C. General Assembly pushed a coal ash cleanup bill to Gov. Pat McCrory for approval before adjourning Aug. 20.
Championed by lawmakers as the first of its kind in the country, the bill requires immediate cleanup of high-priority ponds at four Duke Energy sites, with strategies to address the remaining 10 sites to be determined by a nine-member coal ash commission and enacted by 2029.
Drew Elliot, N.C. Department of Environment and Natural Resources (DENR) communications director, echoed praise for the bill as pioneering a solution for coal ash management.
“It’s a giant step forward in terms of coal ash regulation. It puts North Carolina at the forefront of attacking this longstanding problem,” Elliott said during an Aug. 26 phone interview.
Kemp Burdette, Cape Fear riverkeeper, questioned praise for the bill.
“It is the tiniest of baby steps in the right direction, but it is nowhere near the bill that they describe it as, which is some big cleanup bill. It is totally inadequate,” Burdette said during an Aug. 21 phone interview.
While the coal ash ponds at the Sutton plant in Wilmington will be cleaned up, Burdette noted the Cape Fear plant, upriver from New Hanover County’s drinking water intake, is one of the 10 sites left for later discussion.
Frank Holleman, a Southern Environmental Law Center senior attorney who is pursuing civil charges against Duke for violating state and federal Clean Water Acts, said the legislation requires nothing Duke has not pledged to do.
“This is a pro-Duke bill. It’s not a cleanup bill,” Holleman said during an Aug. 22 phone interview. “The four sites they require to clean up are the four sites Duke already promised to clean up. The only requirements they have in this bill are things Duke has said it will do anyway, or that they expect the [Environmental Protection Agency] to require in the future.”
Both Holleman and Burdette said a sufficient mandate would require ash at all 14 sites to be moved from waterways and stored dry in lined landfills.
Elliott said DENR officials hoped for a law allowing individualized cleanup plans at each site instead of a one-size-fits-all approach. He said all ash could be moved to dry, lined storage if that is determined the best approach.
“That may be where we end up for all of them. That is where we’re going to start for four of them … but we need to actually make sure that is the best thing for the environment and public health,” Elliott said.
Duke spokesperson Jeff Brooks acknowledged an overlap in the legislation and the utility’s existing cleanup plan but said it does add some hurdles to the plan.
“We identified plants we would prioritize and remove coal ash from as part of our plan. The legislation formalizes some of that and gives some timelines and other parameters around which we’ll have to work. … The timelines in this bill are very aggressive and the provisions are complex, so they’re going to set significant challenges for us as we seek to meet the requirements of the legislation,” Brooks said during an Aug. 22 phone interview.
The legislation allows public comment on cleanup strategies for the remaining 10 sites, which Holleman said could push DENR to go above the law’s base requirement of capping ash in place.
“At each of these sites, the public will have a chance to pressure DENR to do the right thing. … It could be, with enough public pressure, they’ll feel the heat and take stronger action to protect the sites,” Holleman said.
Elliot also acknowledged the possibility of public demand influencing final cleanup plans.
“If we need a stricter remediation regime, then that’s what we’ll do,” Elliot said.
DENR issued a notice of violation Aug. 26 to Duke for contamination of groundwater around the Sutton plant. The contamination is believed to be caused by leaking coal ash ponds. A fee or other penalty will likely follow the notice.
email [email protected]
