Amy Adams, Appalachian Voices, 828-262-1500, email@example.com
Donna Lisenby, Waterkeeper Alliance, 704-277-6055, firstname.lastname@example.org
Monica Embrey, Greenpeace USA, 773-419-0963, email@example.com
RALEIGH, NC –Environmental groups Appalachian Voices, Cape Fear Riverkeeper, Catawba Riverkeeper, Charlotte Environmental Action, Greenpeace, Haw Riverkeeper, Neuse Riverkeeper Foundation, Residents for Coal Ash Cleanup (Belews Creek), Winyah Rivers Foundation, Waccamaw Riverkeeper, and Waterkeeper Alliance are deeply concerned about the North Carolina General Assembly’s proposed coal ash bill, and are calling for major changes today to ensure that it protects all North Carolina residents.
Appalachian Voices, N.C. Riverkeepers and Waterkeepers Alliance, Greenpeace and local community groups agree that while the Proposed House Committee Substitute (PCS) of SB 729 has some positive aspects, it contains the same weaknesses as the version that the Senate passed last week. The bill leaves thousands of North Carolinians exposed to the dangers of Duke Energy’s coal ash sites, failing to guarantee clean up at 10 sites that are currently polluting NC’s groundwater.
The groups challenge the House to strengthen SB729 so that it reflects the urgency needed to solve the coal ash problem and protect the health of North Carolina’s communities. House legislators should amend the bill to:
- Ensure the full excavation of all—not some—of Duke’s coal ash sites. The only sure way to control the polluting impact of coal ash dumps is to completely remove the ash and ensure that new disposal sites are dry, lined, sited away from waterways and properly monitored. PCS/SB729 implements this measure for only four of Duke’s 14 coal ash sites. The remaining sites would be eligible for “cap-in-place.” This measure covers only the tops of coal ash sites with plastic and dirt, leaving the groundwater below exposed to coal ash contamination as chemicals leach from the dump’s base. Capping in place does not stop pollution problems and would not have prevented the Dan River disaster.
- Ensure that new disposal facilities are safely managed. Duke’s coal ash must be moved to new sites that are properly managed. Important management practices include liners along the base of storage sites, as well as groundwater monitoring systems to detect leaks. These measures are not new to dump sites: Liner systems are common practice for landfills throughout the country. However, PCS/SB729 leaves avenues by which Duke’s ash could escape these important measures. Sites using coal ash as “structural fill” that contain less than 100,000 tons of ash would not be required to use lined basins or ground-monitoring systems. Coal ash could also be dumped in abandoned mines, bringing the ash in close contact with groundwater.
- Address illegal discharges for what they are: illegal. U.S. residents are protected from coal ash seeps under the federal Clean Water Act. PCS/SB729, however, allows Duke to legalize seeps by applying for a permit—or implementing undefined “best management practices.” The EPA rejects the notion of best management practices as an adequate measure to address illegal leaks from coal ash ponds. The house bill should be consistent with minimum federal guidelines.
- Make Duke—not ratepayers—responsible for the costs of cleaning up all coal ash sites. Duke estimates that cleaning up of all its coal ash ponds could cost as much as $10 billion. Research by the Institute for Energy Economics and Financial Analysis shows that Duke has the financial means to pay these costs. Polling shows that 91% of North Carolinians believe Duke’s shareholders should pay to clean up all the company’s coal ash sites. Yet PCS/SB729 allows Duke to charge ratepayers for cleanup costs by bringing these charges to the North Carolina Utilities Commission for approval. The resulting irony would be that some of the same ratepayers who live under the shadow of Duke’s coal ash pollution could be forced to pay for cleaning it up.
Duke’s coal ash dumps threaten thousands of North Carolina residents, and many residents are already suffering from serious health impacts.
The Associated Press reports that residents living near Duke’s Buck Steam Station in Salisbury face elevated levels of potentially toxic chemicals in their drinking water. Some families have resorted to using bottled water and the surrounding community has suffered from numerous instances of cancer. Buck Steam Station is one of the 10 coal ash sites eligible for cap-in-place under PCS/SB729. The North Carolina General Assembly should stand with people, not polluters, by drafting a new version of PCS/SB729 that properly addresses Duke’s coal ash problem and protects North Carolina’s communities from suffering a fate similar to Dan River.
For more information, visit Appalachian Voices’ web page on coal ash.