Environment

BREAKING: Judge rules for DEQ in Round 1 of coal ash cleanup appeal

Coal ash excavation (Photo: Duke Energy)

This is a breaking story and has been updated with a statement from Duke Energy. Policy Watch has contacted the NC Department of Environmental Quality for additional details.

State environmental regulators were not wrong in choosing the method of closure — excavation and removal of millions of tons of coal ash — at Duke Energy impoundments, Administrative Law Judge Selina Malherbe has ruled.

 

Duke Energy had contested DEQ’s April 1 decision to require it to excavate all of the coal ash from nine unlined impoundments at its remaining six plants. The ash would then be placed in lined landfills onsite or offsite.

Private lawsuits already have compelled Duke Energy to excavate ash from impoundments at eight of its 14 North Carolina plants.

Duke Energy hasn’t exhausted its arguments in the appeal. However, Malherbe’s ruling swings the legal pendulum toward DEQ.

“I am very pleased with the judge’s ruling.  It confirms that DEQ has the authority to select the method of closure for coal ash impoundments,” said DEQ Secretary Michael Regan in a prepared statement. “DEQ stands by its determination that the best way to protect public health, communities and the environment is to excavate coal ash impoundments across the state. We will continue to defend that decision as this appeal moves forward.”

Malherbe dismissed four other Duke Energy claims:

  • That DEQ erred in its timing of selecting a closure plan before Duke Energy submitted its own, which the utility alleged shortcut the process established in state law;
  • That DEQ was wrong to use a comparative standard rather than the yes-or-no standard review of closure plans;
  • That DEQ also erred in determining that Duke must close all of its impoundments by Dec. 31, 2029.

Duke opposed full excavation of its unlined pits, arguing that the economic and environmental costs of excavation at these sites didnt outweigh the benefits. Bill Norton, a Duke Energy spokesperson, said in April the utility’s own science and engineering show the six remaining sites are safe for long-term storage in unlined impoundments that are capped to help prevent water from entering.

The utility estimates full excavation and dry storage would add $4 billion to $5 billion to the current estimate of $5.6 billion for remediations at its plants in North Carolina and South Carolina.

Duke Energy spokeswoman Paige Sheehan provided this statement:

“While we are disappointed in the ruling on this issue, we will proceed with the appeal, standing firm in our belief that the NCDEQ decision is wrong, not based in science and engineering – and not in the best interest of our customers and communities.

“The state’s decision on basin closure mandates the most extreme option for the lowest-risk basins, ignoring information that clearly shows capping the ash in place would continue to fully protect people and the environment.

“By contrast, excavation would drastically increase the cost to customers and create decades of disruption for communities – with no measurable benefit – compared to safely capping the ash in place.”

Check Also

Fence at Umstead would be “permanent eyesore,” says NC Parks to RDU Airport Authority

The RDU Airport Authority today delayed a vote ...

Top Stories from NCPW

  • News
  • Commentary

Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC has filed an application with the Utilities Commission requesting authori [...]

Because DEQ limited air monitor sites to meet EPA criteria, they were too far from hog farms to accu [...]

Law "is clear" Rep. Holly Grange should have reported on businesses owned by her husband e [...]

More than two decades after a landmark state Supreme Court ruling, NC moves a step closer to assurin [...]

The post POTUS, WOTUS and North Carolina ‘wetlands’ appeared first on NC Policy Watch. [...]

If North Carolina Republicans are confounded by the notion that every last one of them disdains publ [...]

As we commemorated the 46th anniversary of the historic Supreme Court decision Roe v Wade last year, [...]

And just like that, another critical election year is upon us – maybe the most important election ye [...]