Capped Alabama Coal Ash Pond Still Polluting Groundwater 7 Years After Closure, Lawsuit Claims – Inside Climate News

Report on Environmental Contamination at Plant Gadsden and Implications for Sustainable Development Goals

A legal challenge has been initiated against Alabama Power concerning the closure of its coal ash pond at Plant Gadsden. The case highlights significant failures in waste management practices, posing direct threats to environmental integrity and public health, and undermining progress toward several United Nations Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs).

1.0 Background: The Plant Gadsden Coal Ash Pond Closure

In 2018, Alabama Power completed a “cover-in-place” closure of the coal ash pond at its Plant Gadsden facility. This method was presented as a model for managing coal combustion residuals in compliance with the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) 2015 regulations. However, subsequent monitoring and legal actions suggest this method has failed to prevent environmental contamination.

2.0 Failure to Meet Clean Water and Sanitation Standards (SDG 6)

The primary conflict centers on the ongoing pollution of local water resources, a direct contradiction of SDG 6: Clean Water and Sanitation, which aims to ensure the availability and sustainable management of water.

• Groundwater Contamination: Self-reported data from Alabama Power as recent as October 2024 indicates severe groundwater contamination.
• Toxic Pollutants: Levels of arsenic have been recorded at forty times the legal standard. Other harmful substances detected include boron, chromium, and cobalt.
• Proximity to Water Bodies: The contaminated site is located on the banks of the Coosa River and Neely Henry Lake, a major recreational water body. The lawsuit contends that nearly 40% of the coal ash remains saturated in groundwater, allowing contaminants to continuously leach into the water table.

3.0 Threats to Health, Well-being, and Ecosystems (SDG 3, SDG 14, SDG 15)

The leaching of toxic materials from the ash pond presents multifaceted risks to human and environmental health, challenging the objectives of several SDGs.

1. SDG 3: Good Health and Well-being: Coal ash contains contaminants like mercury, cadmium, and arsenic, which the EPA associates with cancer and other serious health effects. The contamination of groundwater, which is less than a mile upstream from a drinking water intake, poses a significant potential risk to public health.
2. SDG 14: Life Below Water: The release of toxic substances into the Coosa River and Neely Henry Lake threatens aquatic ecosystems. These water bodies support local biodiversity and are popular destinations for activities such as bass fishing, which is now under threat.
3. SDG 15: Life on Land: The pollution of groundwater degrades the surrounding terrestrial ecosystems, impacting soil quality and the overall health of the local environment.

4.0 Challenges in Responsible Production and Institutional Justice (SDG 12, SDG 16)

The case exposes systemic issues in corporate responsibility and regulatory oversight, key concerns of SDGs focused on production patterns and institutional strength.

• SDG 12: Responsible Consumption and Production: The lawsuit challenges the “cover-in-place” method as an irresponsible waste management practice. Environmental groups advocate for the complete excavation of the coal ash and its removal to a modern, lined landfill, which represents a more sustainable approach to handling industrial byproducts.
• SDG 16: Peace, Justice and Strong Institutions: The legal action by the Southern Environmental Law Center and Coosa Riverkeeper represents an effort to enforce environmental law and hold a corporation accountable. This is compounded by the EPA’s 2024 denial of Alabama’s state-level coal ash permitting program, which it deemed “significantly less protective” than federal law requires, indicating a failure of institutional governance.

5.0 Impact on Sustainable Communities (SDG 11)

The ongoing pollution directly affects the viability of the local community, undermining SDG 11: Sustainable Cities and Communities.

• Community Resources: The contamination threatens Neely Henry Lake, a vital resource for local ecotourism and recreation, thereby impacting the local economy and quality of life for the citizens of Gadsden.
• Environmental Justice: The failure to properly secure toxic waste places a disproportionate burden on the local community, raising concerns about environmental justice and the right to a safe and healthy environment.

6.0 Conclusion and Path Forward

The situation at Plant Gadsden serves as a critical case study on the consequences of inadequate industrial waste management. The legal challenge brought by environmental groups underscores a fundamental conflict between cost-saving closure methods and the principles of sustainable development. Achieving the SDGs requires that corporations like Alabama Power adopt more responsible practices, such as full excavation of coal ash, and that regulatory bodies provide robust oversight to protect public health and vital ecosystems for future generations.

SDGs Addressed or Connected to the Issues Highlighted in the Article

• SDG 3: Good Health and Well-being
• SDG 6: Clean Water and Sanitation
• SDG 11: Sustainable Cities and Communities
• SDG 12: Responsible Consumption and Production
• SDG 14: Life Below Water
• SDG 15: Life on Land
• SDG 16: Peace, Justice and Strong Institutions

Specific Targets Identified Based on the Article’s Content

1. Target 3.9: By 2030, substantially reduce the number of deaths and illnesses from hazardous chemicals and air, water and soil pollution and contamination.

   The article directly addresses this target by highlighting the health risks associated with coal ash. It states that coal ash “often contains contaminants like mercury, cadmium, chromium and arsenic which can be ‘associated with cancer and various other serious health effects.'” The leakage of these substances into groundwater poses a direct threat to human health through environmental contamination.

2. Target 6.3: By 2030, improve water quality by reducing pollution, eliminating dumping and minimizing release of hazardous chemicals and materials…

   This is a central theme of the article. The lawsuit alleges that the Plant Gadsden facility “is still leaking toxic substances into groundwater on the banks of the Coosa River and Neely Henry Lake.” The core issue is the failure to prevent the release of hazardous materials from the coal ash pond, directly impacting water quality.

3. Target 6.6: By 2020, protect and restore water-related ecosystems, including mountains, forests, wetlands, rivers, aquifers and lakes.

   The pollution from the coal ash lagoon directly threatens the ecosystems of the “Coosa River and Neely Henry Lake, a popular boating and bass fishing destination.” The contamination of groundwater that feeds into these surface water bodies constitutes a failure to protect these specific water-related ecosystems.

4. Target 11.6: By 2030, reduce the adverse per capita environmental impact of cities, including by paying special attention to air quality and municipal and other waste management.

   The article discusses the improper management of industrial waste (“coal ash lagoon”) located near the community of Gadsden. The lawsuit highlights the negative environmental impact on the “citizens of Gadsden” and the surrounding area due to failed waste management practices, which this target aims to reduce.

5. Target 12.4: By 2020, achieve the environmentally sound management of chemicals and all wastes throughout their life cycle… and significantly reduce their release to air, water and soil in order to minimize their adverse impacts on human health and the environment.

   The entire article revolves around the debate over the proper management of coal ash waste. The conflict between the “cover-in-place” method and the call to “excavate its coal ash and move the material to a lined landfill” is a direct discussion about the most environmentally sound way to manage this hazardous waste and prevent its release into the environment.

6. Target 14.1: By 2025, prevent and significantly reduce marine pollution of all kinds, in particular from land-based activities…

   The leakage from the coal ash pond is a land-based activity causing pollution in a freshwater system (Coosa River). As freshwater systems ultimately flow to the ocean, this land-based pollution contributes to the broader problem of marine pollution that this target seeks to address.

7. Target 15.1: By 2020, ensure the conservation, restoration and sustainable use of terrestrial and inland freshwater ecosystems and their services…

   The contamination of the Coosa River and Neely Henry Lake directly degrades these inland freshwater ecosystems. The article notes that the lake is a “popular boating and bass fishing destination,” indicating that its ecosystem services (recreation, food source) are threatened by the pollution.

8. Target 16.3: Promote the rule of law at the national and international levels and ensure equal access to justice for all.

   The action taken by the Southern Environmental Law Center, which “filed a lawsuit Tuesday against Alabama Power,” is a clear example of using the legal system to address environmental grievances and enforce regulations. This represents an effort to ensure access to justice for the affected community.

9. Target 16.6: Develop effective, accountable and transparent institutions at all levels.

   The article highlights institutional failure and accountability. The EPA’s decision to deny “approval of Alabama’s coal ash permitting program” because it was “significantly less protective of people and waterways than federal law requires” points directly to the need for effective and accountable state-level environmental institutions that can properly enforce regulations.

Indicators Mentioned or Implied in the Article

1. Concentration of pollutants in groundwater

   This is a direct, quantitative indicator mentioned in the article. It states that “Alabama Power’s self-reported groundwater monitoring results show ‘levels of arsenic forty times the legal standard in groundwater,’ as well as potentially harmful levels of boron, chromium and cobalt.” This data is used to measure the extent of the pollution and the failure to meet environmental standards.

2. Proportion of waste managed in an environmentally sound manner

   This indicator is implied in the central conflict of the article. The lawsuit contends that the “cover-in-place” method is not environmentally sound because “nearly 40 percent of the ash at Gadsden remains saturated in groundwater.” The call to “excavate its coal ash and move the material to a lined landfill” suggests an alternative, sounder management practice. The choice of method serves as an indicator of progress towards Target 12.4.

3. Number of legal actions to enforce environmental law

   The article is centered on a specific indicator of this type: “The Southern Environmental Law Center, on behalf of environmental group Coosa Riverkeeper, filed a lawsuit Tuesday against Alabama Power.” The filing of the lawsuit itself is a measurable action taken to hold a polluter accountable and seek justice, reflecting progress on Target 16.3.

4. Assessment of institutional compliance with federal regulations

   An indicator of institutional effectiveness is explicitly mentioned. The article notes that “the EPA denied approval of Alabama’s coal ash permitting program,” citing that the state-approved permits were “significantly less protective of people and waterways than federal law requires.” This denial serves as a formal assessment and indicator of the state institution’s failure to meet national standards.

SDGs, Targets and Indicators Analysis

Source: insideclimatenews.org