Alabama Power threatened with lawsuit for contaminating groundwater with coal ash
This article originally appeared on Inside Climate News, a nonprofit, non-partisan news organization that covers climate, energy and the environment. Sign up for their newsletter here.
GADSDEN, Ala.—Cruising upstream on the Coosa River through downtown Gadsden, it would be easy to miss the old coal ash pond sitting on the north bank of the river.
It's mostly hidden by trees and bushes, except for a narrow opening with an aging chain-link fence and a 'no trespassing' sign. Even from the air, the green synthetic liner that covers 65 years' worth of coal combustion residuals looks like an extension of the Twin Bridges Golf Club that borders the pond to the west.
'There are people that boat by this all the time and have no idea what it is,' Coosa Riverkeeper Justinn Overton said as the boat idled in the channel. 'Because it just looks like it's an extension off the golf course, or nothing to be concerned about. It doesn't look like it's the leftover waste from the coal-fired power plant.'
SUBSCRIBE: GET THE MORNING HEADLINES DELIVERED TO YOUR INBOX
Alabama Power's Gadsden Steam Plant was demolished last year after 109 years on the river, but the unlined coal ash pond remains, and, according to the Coosa Riverkeeper, continues to leech potentially harmful substances like arsenic, boron, chromium and cobalt into the groundwater.
Now, Coosa Riverkeeper has filed a formal notice of intent to sue Alabama Power over the groundwater pollution from the old pond, based on groundwater testing results that Alabama Power is required to post twice per year.
The Riverkeeper, represented by the Southern Environmental Law Center, says it will file a lawsuit under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's Coal Combustion Residuals (CCR) Rule, which regulates coal ash disposal. Such lawsuits require a formal notice at least 60 days before filing.
'Alabama Power has zero excuses for leaving its leaking waste dump in the middle of the commercial riverfront area of Gadsden and exposing the community to this hazard,' Barry Brock, director of SELC's Alabama office, said in a news release announcing the move. 'Other utilities across the South are cleaning up unlined coal ash dumps and moving waste to safer storage away from our waterways. Alabama Power must do the same in Gadsden.'
Alabama Power did not immediately respond to multiple requests for comment by phone and email.
At 77 acres and 1.2 million cubic yards of coal ash, the Gadsden ash pond is much smaller than some of the other massive coal ash lagoons in Alabama. The one at Plant Barry, in Mobile County, is nearly 600 acres.
But Gadsden's was the first coal ash pond in Alabama to fully close after the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency implemented federal coal ash disposal rules in 2015. In fact, plans for the closure were already underway before the final rule was issued.
Coal ash, or CCR, is an umbrella term that refers to several waste materials generated by the process of burning coal for electricity production. These waste materials can include fly ash, bottom ash, boiler slag and flue gas desulfurization sludge.
Often, energy utilities combine these waste materials with water and store them in ponds at or near electrical generating plants, a practice environmental groups have criticized because they risk contaminating groundwater. Currently, Alabama has nine coal ash disposal sites across the state, most of which are located near waterways.
The Gadsden ash pond was covered in 2018, but still appears to be releasing significant levels of toxins into groundwater. The Riverkeeper says that the October 2024 sampling results show arsenic at 40 times the legal standard for groundwater.
The Gadsden ash pond is also close to the city's riverfront area, including numerous boat launches and areas where people can fish from the banks. There's also a drinking water intake just 0.6 miles downstream from the ash pond.
Overton said it's concerning that the pond is still contaminating groundwater at high levels years after closure.
'We've been asking for the same thing, over and over again, which is [for Alabama Power to] move your ash to an upland lined landfill,' Overton said. 'Unfortunately, it takes litigation at times to force movement.'
For all of its coal ash lagoons, Alabama Power elected to 'dewater' and cover the ponds where they are rather than excavate the ash and move it to a lined landfill. In that process, the remaining ash slurry was dewatered and compacted into a smaller footprint. A low-permeability liner was then installed on top of the slurry to keep rainwater from entering the disposal area and carrying contaminants into the environment.
Environmental advocates and concerned citizens have urged the company for a decade now to move the coal ash to lined landfills away from the rivers to prevent groundwater contamination. They are also concerned about the potential for a catastrophic incident like the one at the Tennessee Valley Authority's Kingston, Tennessee, plant in 2007, when a dam breach sent 5.4 million cubic yards of coal ash slurry into a holding pond and then the Emory River.
In 2014, a steel sewer line under a North Carolina coal ash pond collapsed, allowing the waste material to flow into the pipe and, eventually, into the nearby Dan River, polluting the water and putting dozens of marine species in harm's way. The disaster was among more than 160 cases of water contamination at coal ash sites that spurred adoption of the Coal Ash Rule in 2015.
The 2015 EPA coal ash rules allowed for cover in place, as long as certain conditions were met. The Alabama Department of Environmental Management signed off on the company's cover in place plans, approving closure permits for all ash ponds in the state.
However, last year, the EPA rejected Alabama's coal ash permitting program, saying it was 'significantly less protective of people and waterways than federal law requires.'
'Under federal regulations, coal ash units cannot be closed in a way that allows coal ash to continue to spread contamination in groundwater after closure,' the EPA said, in denying Alabama's program. 'In contrast, Alabama's permit program does not require that groundwater contamination be adequately addressed during the closure of these coal ash units.'
A 2019 report by the Environmental Integrity Project and other advocacy groups found that 91 percent of coal-fired plants still had ash landfills or waste ponds that leak highly toxic metals and chemicals such as arsenic, lead, mercury, selenium and cadmium into groundwater at dangerous levels, often threatening streams, rivers and drinking water aquifers.
'Exposure to coal ash can lead to serious health concerns like cancer if the ash isn't managed appropriately,' then-EPA Administrator Michael S. Regan said of the federal government's denial of Alabama's coal ash permitting plan at the time. 'Low-income and underserved communities are especially vulnerable to coal ash in waterways, groundwater, drinking water, and in the air. This is why EPA works closely with states to ensure coal ash is disposed of safely, so that water sources remain free of this pollution and communities are protected from contamination.'
An executive of Alabama Power, which owns most of the state's CCR units, claimed at a September 2023 EPA hearing that the utility's storage ponds are 'structurally sound.' Susan Comensky, Alabama Power's vice president of environmental affairs, told EPA officials that allowing the company to 'cap' CCR waste in place, even in unlined pits, will not present significant risks to human or environmental health.
'Even today, before closure is complete, we know of no impact to any source of drinking water at or around any Alabama Power ash pond,' Comensky said at the time.
However, Alabama Power has been repeatedly fined for leaking coal ash waste into groundwater.
In 2019, ADEM fined the utility $250,000 after groundwater monitoring at a disposal site on the Coosa River in Gadsden showed elevated levels of arsenic and radium, according to regulatory documents.
In 2018, ADEM fined Alabama Power a total of $1.25 million for groundwater contamination, records show. In its order issuing the fine, the agency cited the utility's own groundwater testing data, which showed elevated levels of arsenic, lead, selenium and beryllium.
The EPA denial notice cited Gadsden, among other coal ash ponds in Alabama, where waste ash material remains in constant contact with groundwater.
Overton said about 40 percent of the ash at Gadsden is saturated by groundwater.
'Alabama Power created this mess,' Overton said. 'They shut this facility down and demolished it, but now they want to leave [the ash] here. Alabama Power claims to be a good neighbor, but I was taught that to be a good neighbor, you clean up after yourself.'
SUPPORT: YOU MAKE OUR WORK POSSIBLE
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles

Miami Herald
2 days ago
- Miami Herald
50 years after ‘Jaws,' US beaches still aren't safe for swimming
I still remember seeing the movie 'Jaws' in the theater in 1975. I was 9 years old. Whenever the great white shark appeared, my mom put her hands over her eyes — but I was transfixed, caught between fear and fascination. My friends and I then spent countless hours that summer learning about sharks and drawing them. Only later did I learn that the more widespread threat in the water was not killer sharks but man-made pollution. Just three years before 'Jaws' hit the theaters, Congress responded to the unrestrained dumping of toxins and heavy metals into our waters by passing the Clean Water Act, which pledged to make all of America's waters safe for swimming. Five decades later, that promise of the Clean Water Act remains unfulfilled. While we have made some progress in reducing direct discharges of industrial pollution, billions of gallons of sewage and polluted stormwater continue to flow into America's rivers, lakes and bays and onto beaches. New research shows just how scary that pathogen pollution can be. Environment America Research & Policy Center's recent 'Safe for Swimming?' report found that 61% of U.S. beaches had potentially unsafe contamination levels of fecal bacteria on at least one day in 2024. Each year, people swimming in contaminated U.S. waters experience an estimated 57 million cases of illness. These include nausea, vomiting and diarrhea, as well as respiratory disease, ear and eye infection and skin rash. Even though 'Jaws' is about a shark rather than fecal bacteria (I'm pretty sure no one wants to see a movie about that), it contains a lesson for dealing with any pervasive threat in nearby waters: You need adequate resources and political will. In the movie, the failure of Mayor Larry Vaughn to protect residents of the fictional New England beach town of Amity Island compounds the danger posed by the shark. Only after appeals from local Police Chief Martin Brody does the mayor commit the resources and take the steps needed to find the shark. Similarly, it will take significant resources to stop sewage overflows and runoff pollution. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency estimates that managing our nation's wastewater and stormwater will require at least $630 billion over the next 20 years. The main federal program that communities rely on for projects to reduce sewage and stormwater pollution — the Clean Water State Revolving Fund — is currently funded at less than 20% of that annual cost. You can't fight water pollution (or a shark) without enough resources at your disposal. Yet some in Congress are steering us in the wrong direction. Amid a summer of floods and beach closures across America, the U.S. House Appropriations Committee recently voted to slash funding for the Clean Water State Revolving Fund. The committee's bill also significantly reduces funding for the Drinking Water State Revolving Fund, even as toxic PFAS 'forever chemicals' taint the drinking water of more than 158 million Americans, and more than 9 million dangerous lead pipes are still in use. It's clear that Congress needs to increase water infrastructure funding — not slash it. We need our elected representatives to act in the spirit of Chief Brody, who urged swift action to protect the public and joined the expedition to hunt the killer shark. After an epic battle, with the help of a scuba tank and a rifle, Brody delivered the fatal blow, finally making Amity Islands beaches once again safe for swimming. With Congress now in recess, we have a critical window of time to stop these proposed cuts to the money we need to tackle sewage pollution. Americans can add their voices by contacting their representatives in Congress to urge them to vote against the committee's bill. For our members of Congress to make our waters safer, the only weapon they need is their vote. John Rumpler is clean water director at the 501(c)(4) nonprofit Environment America. He is also co-author of the 'Safe for Swimming?' report by Environment America Research & Policy Center.


Chicago Tribune
01-07-2025
- Chicago Tribune
EPA weighing how to address Lake County asbestos contamination; ‘It's a pretty isolated location'
Whether the southwest portion of the Illinois Beach Nature Preserve at the Illinois Beach State Park is ever open to the public remains a question, but the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is getting closer to remediating the asbestos contamination there. Currently inaccessible to the public both by physical means — there is a fence — and an EPA ruling, Dave Nadel, the EPA's community involvement coordinator for Region 5, which includes the Chicago area, said he is in the process of finalizing the decision-making. Adjacent to the Johns Manville EPA Superfund site, Nadel said the contamination occurred years ago — likely in the 1940s or 1950s — before it became part of the nature preserve in 1964. Not part of Manville's property, dumping occurred in the past. The discovery of asbestos was more recent. 'It came to the surface through freeze cycle,' Neal said, referring to the ground freezing and thawing as the seasons change. 'We will decide on remediation and disposal.' Twice in June the EPA came to Waukegan — June 4 and 26 — to learn the public's ideas about how to handle the site. The EPA is in the process of preparing the Record of Decision Document on Operable Area 6 of the Superfund site, which is the southwest portion of the nature preserve, with a goal of finishing it by fall. Presenting three options for public comment during both the June 4 and 26 meetings, one would be no action at all, another is periodic disposal of the asbestos with all public restrictions remaining in place, according to EPA documents. The projected cost is $554,000. A third option, which Nadel said is the preferred method, is much more detailed. There will be regular removal of asbestos by properly licensed personnel both before and after controlled burns, or after any wildfire that may occur. There will be an air monitoring program. Existing institutional controls will remain, like restricted access and land-use controls to limit disturbance activities, according to the EPA documents. Any access requires physical protective equipment and 'asbestos awareness training.' The forecast cost is $967,000. Additional hazard warning signage will be placed around the area's perimeter, according to the documents. Enhanced work project practices during burns, like 'wet method mop-up' and masks, will be part of the program. All removal will be done by hand and taken to approved landfills. Mayra Mendez, the executive director of Clean Power Lake County, an environmental activist organization, said at the June 27 meeting that her group prefers the enhanced method. Though she wants to see the entire Superfund site gone — not just Operable Area 6 — it provides the most protection. 'We have a lot of endangered spaces that affect our health,' Mendez said. 'The enhanced plan is the best, and the community deserves mitigation in this environmental-justice community.' Not the only public official at the meeting, Nadel was joined by representatives of the Illinois Environmental Protection Agency, the Illinois Department of Public Health, the Lake County Health Department and the Illinois Nature Preserve Commission. A.J. Burlingham, an environmental health specialist with the state Health Department, said he was at the public information session to answer questions people may have about the impact of inhaling asbestos. 'The likelihood is very low at this site,' Burlingham said. 'It's a pretty isolated location that's been unavailable to the public for a long time. It's not like they had an opportunity to breathe much there.'


Chicago Tribune
20-06-2025
- Chicago Tribune
EPA plans to test 250 homes near Federated Metals this summer
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency said it plans to sample just over 250 homes for toxic soil, including lead, this summer primarily in Whiting-Robertsdale near the former Federated Metals property. It comes more than a year after the agency added it as a Superfund site in late 2023, declaring it one of the country's most polluted properties — nearly 90 years after the industrial site first opened, according to the EPA. Homeowners have to sign up with the EPA, before their yards can be tested on a first-come, first-served basis. EPA maps of the area — littered with green dots — note several yards tested before have shown high levels of lead or arsenic. 'It's upsetting,' said Julian De Leon, who grew up in Whiting and whose parents still live on Birch Avenue. 'It's dangerous and harmful. I've got kids, so I definitely don't approve of (the lead) and if it is here, we should move out (as soon as possible).' The 30-year-old told the Post-Tribune Friday that he doesn't know if his parents have received communication about the lead testing, and he didn't know about it. De Leon worries about families with kids near the Superfund site. 'It's upsetting,' he said. 'It's something we should be on top of.' Nearly 10,000 people live within a mile of the former smelter in Whiting and the Robertsdale neighborhood of Hammond. The site is near a bike trail, parks, a church and Calumet College of St. Joseph. Multiple residents near New York Avenue in Whiting did not know about the EPA's plans to test the area for toxic soil. David Pustek, a New York Avenue resident, said he hasn't received communication about testing from the EPA or city. Pustek's property was tested about three years ago when new development came to the area, he said, including with private testing he had done. Lead was found in the soil, Pusek said, but he doesn't think it was a high amount. 'The other ones came up negative,' Pusek said, 'but I'm sure they would have said that anyway.' Another Whiting resident, John Milch, said he also didn't know about the area's lead testing. Milch, 54, said he's lived in Whiting his entire life, and he's in good health. 'I think it's important,' Milch said about lead testing. 'People like me should know more about it. … When you live here, you see (industry), but you don't think much of it.' The EPA did not respond to a request for an interview. Several agency representatives appeared to be on vacation. Whiting Mayor Steve Spebar could not be reached. His office was closed Thursday and Friday. Critics, including David Dabertin, a Hammond lawyer and former regional director of the Indiana Department of Environmental Management, have said that state and federal regulators failed generations of people who lived near the former facility. 'I would have had (your yard) sampled years ago,' he said Thursday. 'I wouldn't wait for the U.S. EPA. It's horrible.' By contrast, he praised Hammond's approach to take federal money in recent years to remediate nearly 70 yards. It was 'unique and very admirable,' he said. 'They said, 'We're not going to wait.'' Hammond Mayor Tom McDermott 'and I don't see eye-to-eye on anything,' Dabertin said. 'Time has born that out,' he said of the city's actions. 'Those people got those yards cleaned up.' Everyone else going to the EPA 'is going to be waiting a long time.' Dabertin previously told the Post-Tribune that he confronted Gov. Eric Holcomb in April 2018 and asked why federal and state officials then allowed other lead-processing companies to operate on the same site. McDermott said by text Friday that the city's efforts were '98%' if not completely done. However, the EPA's part could likely take 'a decade or longer.' Located at 2230 Indianapolis Boulevard, Federated Metals was a metal smelting, refining, recovering and recycling facility for nearly 50 years along George Lake, which borders the Robertsdale neighborhood of Hammond and Whiting. Originally owned and operated by Federated Metals Corp. (FMC) the facility was sold in 1985 to HBR Partnership and was used by multiple businesses, including Northern Indiana Metals and Whiting Metals, before shutting down permanently in 2020. Smelter operations like Federated Metals emitted lead, arsenic and other heavy metals from their buildings and waste piles, the EPA said. Pollution at the site has long been a concern of the EPA. In 1992, FMC and its parent corporation, ASARCO, entered into a federal consent decree to settle a lawsuit brought by the agency stemming from alleged violations of environmental regulations. The company agreed to construct a landfill on the site and cover lead-contaminated soil with trees. Soil samples taken by the EPA from 2016 to 2018 found 163 residential yards had soil lead levels above 400 parts per million, the level at which the agency recommends action — or soil removal. In recent years, the agency has found highly toxic properties with lead levels at least three times over that benchmark. In 2018 and 2019, the EPA removed contaminated soil from 33 residential properties in Whiting and Hammond that had lead levels exceeding 1,200 parts per million or were home to pregnant women or children under 7. The city of Hammond launched its own soil removal project in 2021, funded with $5 million from the city's American Rescue Plan Act funds, and had cleaned up 69 properties by 2024, according to the EPA. The agency also said that it needs public input for 155 properties already tested that have high lead levels in the soil. More information is expected to be released later this summer. Lead is unsafe at any level, according to the EPA and the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Ingesting tiny concentrations can permanently damage the developing brains of children and contribute to heart disease, kidney failure and other health problems later in life. Long-term exposure to arsenic could lead to severe illness, including cancer. It's also linked to skin lesions, high blood pressure and elevated risk for diabetes.