After decades of pollution and elevated arsenic, will Indy’s toxic coal ash ponds be cleaned? – IndyStar

Report on Coal Ash Contamination and Remediation at AES Indiana’s Harding Street Station

1.0 Introduction: Addressing Environmental Legacy in Line with Sustainable Development Goals

AES Indiana is undertaking corrective measures to manage toxic coal ash ponds at its Harding Street Station, located on the east bank of the White River. This initiative is a direct response to groundwater contamination that exceeds federal protection standards, prompting action under national regulations. The remediation efforts are critically aligned with several United Nations Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), particularly those concerning environmental health, clean water, and sustainable communities.

2.0 Contamination Analysis and SDG Implications

Groundwater monitoring initiated in 2019 has revealed contamination that necessitates a robust response to protect environmental and public health, directly impacting the achievement of key SDGs.

• SDG 6: Clean Water and Sanitation: Monitoring data confirmed the presence of arsenic, lithium, and molybdenum in local groundwater at levels requiring corrective action. The contamination of this vital resource is a direct challenge to the targets of SDG 6, which aims to ensure the availability and sustainable management of water for all.
• SDG 3: Good Health and Well-being: While a third-party assessment by Haley Aldrich stated the pollutants pose “no adverse impacts on human health or the environment,” the presence of known contaminants like arsenic in groundwater systems inherently risks public health, a core concern of SDG 3.
• SDG 14 & 15: Life Below Water and Life on Land: The proximity to the White River raises concerns about the potential for contaminated groundwater to impact aquatic ecosystems (SDG 14) and surrounding land (SDG 15). Securing the coal ash is essential to prevent further degradation, especially during flood events.

3.0 Framework for Corrective Action and Remediation

AES Indiana has established a set of criteria to evaluate potential remedies, reflecting a commitment to sustainable and responsible environmental management.

3.1 Core Objectives for Remediation

1. Protect human health and the environment, aligning with SDG 3 and SDG 15.
2. Attain groundwater protection standards, directly supporting SDG 6.
3. Control the sources of releases to reduce or eliminate further contamination, a principle of SDG 12: Responsible Consumption and Production.
4. Remove existing contamination from the environment.

3.2 Proposed Solutions

The assessment outlines several potential technical solutions to manage the coal combustion residuals:

• Capping the ponds with a low-permeability material such as cement.
• Constructing subsurface barrier walls to contain contaminants.
• Implementing groundwater extraction and treatment systems.

Environmental advocates, such as the Hoosier Environmental Council, emphasize the need for a comprehensive solution that permanently secures the coal ash and prevents future contamination of the White River.

4.0 Stakeholder Engagement and Institutional Responsibility

The remediation process incorporates public participation, reflecting principles of transparency and inclusivity vital for sustainable development.

• SDG 16: Peace, Justice and Strong Institutions: In compliance with federal regulations, AES has instituted a public comment period, allowing residents and stakeholders to provide input on the proposed solutions. This process fosters accountability and strengthens institutional frameworks for environmental governance.
• SDG 17: Partnerships for the Goals: The engagement between the utility, regulatory bodies, environmental organizations, and the public exemplifies the multi-stakeholder partnerships required to address complex environmental challenges and achieve the SDGs.

5.0 Conclusion: Advancing a Sustainable Future

The cleanup of the Harding Street Station’s coal ash ponds is a critical undertaking to mitigate the environmental legacy of decades of coal-burning operations (1931-2016). The primary goals are twofold: first, to prevent further pollution from reaching the groundwater, and second, to remediate the groundwater that is already contaminated. Successfully implementing a scientifically sound and publicly supported solution will represent a significant step toward achieving SDG 6 (Clean Water and Sanitation), SDG 11 (Sustainable Cities and Communities), and SDG 12 (Responsible Consumption and Production) for the region.

Analysis of Sustainable Development Goals in the Article

1. Which SDGs are addressed or connected to the issues highlighted in the article?

1. SDG 3: Good Health and Well-being

   • The article discusses the contamination of groundwater with toxic substances like arsenic, lithium, and molybdenum from coal ash. These contaminants pose a direct threat to human health if they enter drinking water sources. The cleanup efforts described, which aim to “protect human health,” directly align with this goal.

2. SDG 6: Clean Water and Sanitation

   • This is a central SDG in the article. The core issue is the contamination of groundwater by coal ash ponds at the Harding Street Station. The article explicitly states that “Coal ash at the site is contaminating nearby groundwater at levels exceeding protection standards” and that a primary goal is to “stop groundwater contamination.”

3. SDG 11: Sustainable Cities and Communities

   • The Harding Street Station is a piece of industrial infrastructure located within a community, along the bank of the White River. The management of its industrial waste (coal ash) has a direct environmental impact on the surrounding area. The efforts to clean up this legacy pollution contribute to making the community safer and more environmentally sustainable.

4. SDG 12: Responsible Consumption and Production

   • The article deals with the lifecycle of waste generated from energy production (coal burning). The problem of coal ash ponds is a direct consequence of past production patterns. The focus on the “environmentally sound management of… wastes” through cleanup and containment plans is a key component of this SDG.

5. SDG 14: Life Below Water

   • The contaminated site is located on the “east bank of the White River.” The article mentions the need to secure the coal ash for “the next time the White River floods.” This highlights the risk of land-based pollution entering a major waterway, which can harm aquatic ecosystems, connecting the issue to the protection of life below water.

6. SDG 16: Peace, Justice and Strong Institutions

   • The article notes that AES is required to act by “federal rules” and has “opened up a public comment period so residents and stakeholders can submit their opinions on the proposed solutions.” This demonstrates the role of regulations (strong institutions) and the inclusion of the public in decision-making processes, which is a key aspect of this goal.

2. What specific targets under those SDGs can be identified based on the article’s content?

1. SDG 3: Good Health and Well-being

   • 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’s focus on cleaning up groundwater contaminated with arsenic, mercury, and cadmium directly addresses the need to mitigate health risks from water and soil pollution.

2. SDG 6: Clean Water and Sanitation

   • Target 6.3: By 2030, improve water quality by reducing pollution, eliminating dumping and minimizing release of hazardous chemicals and materials. The entire cleanup operation described, which aims to “reduce or eliminate future releases of contaminants, and remove the existing contamination,” is an embodiment of this target.
   • Target 6.6: By 2020, protect and restore water-related ecosystems, including mountains, forests, wetlands, rivers, aquifers and lakes. The site’s proximity to the White River and the contamination of the local groundwater table make the cleanup essential for protecting and restoring the local water-related ecosystem.

3. SDG 11: Sustainable Cities and Communities

   • 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 focuses on managing hazardous industrial waste (coal ash) from a former power plant within a city to reduce its adverse environmental impact.

4. SDG 12: Responsible Consumption and Production

   • Target 12.4: By 2020, achieve the environmentally sound management of chemicals and all wastes throughout their life cycle, in accordance with agreed international frameworks, and significantly reduce their release to air, water and soil in order to minimize their adverse impacts on human health and the environment. The article is a case study of this target, detailing the process of managing hazardous coal ash waste to prevent its release into groundwater and soil.

5. SDG 14: Life Below Water

   • Target 14.1: By 2025, prevent and significantly reduce marine pollution of all kinds, in particular from land-based activities, including marine debris and nutrient pollution. While the White River is not a marine environment, the principle of preventing pollution from land-based industrial sites from entering waterways is directly applicable. The contamination poses a threat to the river’s ecosystem.

6. SDG 16: Peace, Justice and Strong Institutions

   • Target 16.7: Ensure responsive, inclusive, participatory and representative decision-making at all levels. The article explicitly mentions that AES created an “online portal for the public to write their comments” and that the “public can submit comments through Nov. 16.” This demonstrates a participatory process for decision-making on an important environmental issue.

3. Are there any indicators mentioned or implied in the article that can be used to measure progress towards the identified targets?

1. Indicator for Target 6.3

   • The article states that “Groundwater monitoring beginning in 2019 at the site’s coal ash ponds found high levels of arsenic, lithium and molybdenum at levels that require corrective actions.” This implies a direct indicator: the measured concentration of hazardous chemicals (arsenic, lithium, molybdenum) in the groundwater. Progress would be measured by the reduction of these levels to below established “protection standards.”

2. Indicator for Target 12.4

   • The article discusses managing “multiple ponds” of coal ash. An implied indicator for the sound management of this waste is the volume or tonnage of hazardous waste (coal ash) that is safely contained, treated, or removed. The success of solutions like “capping the ponds with cement or building walls” can be quantified.

3. Indicator for Target 16.7

   • The article’s mention of a “public comment period” and an “online portal for the public to write their comments” points to an indicator related to public participation. This could be measured by the existence and accessibility of a formal public consultation process for environmental management decisions. A further quantitative measure could be the number of comments submitted by residents and stakeholders.

4. Table of SDGs, Targets, and Indicators

Source: indystar.com