Speakers urge ADEM to deny Alabama Power permit to cap Gorgas coal ash at Rattlesnake Lake

At a public hearing convened by the Alabama Department of Environmental Management in Montgomery in December 2021, residents and environmental groups urged the agency not to approve draft coal combustion residual (CCR) permits that would leave coal ash in place at Alabama Power’s Plant Gorgas, at Rattlesnake Lake, arguing that a cap-in-place closure will not stop ongoing groundwater and surface-water contamination.

Speakers told ADEM staff the draft permit lacks adequate groundwater characterization, does not model long-term leachate or inflow from buried Rattlesnake Creek, and relies on monitored natural attenuation without site-specific data. Keith Johnson, director of the Alabama office of the Southern Environmental Law Center, said, “Cap in place is not going to work.” John Kenny, staff scientist with Black Warrior Riverkeeper, said Alabama Power’s choice of “monitored natural attenuation is basically just a fancy way of saying do nothing.”

The objections focused on three technical and regulatory gaps. First, several speakers said application materials do not contain adequate groundwater data or modeling to show the extent of contamination beneath the ash footprint. Johnson and others said the draft permit contains no borings inside the ash footprint to estimate how much ash remains saturated or how groundwater will flow through buried creek channels. Kenny said that, because Rattlesnake Creek was dammed to create the ash impoundment, groundwater and subsurface flow will continue to contact buried ash even with a cover installed.

Second, commenters said the draft closure plan allows future groundwater degradation and post-closure discharges. Cindy Lowry of the Alabama Rivers Alliance said Alabama Power’s own data show elevated concentrations of arsenic, beryllium, boron, cadmium, cobalt, lithium, molybdenum and sulfate in nearby monitoring wells and that 34 of 37 wells exceed advisory levels. Speakers requested modeling that estimates how long remediation would take under the proposed plan and a direct comparison of excavation-and-relocation versus cap-and-leave-in-place options.

Third, speakers urged ADEM not to rely on monitored natural attenuation (MNA) without site-specific evidence that the aquifer can attenuate contaminants. Kenny noted that Alabama Power’s assessment itself estimates MNA could take two decades or more and that the company has not demonstrated how attenuation would meet groundwater-protection standards at this site.

Several commenters cited regional precedents and catastrophic spills to support excavation. Keith Johnson referenced the 2008 Kingston, Tennessee dam failure and the 2014 Dan River spill in North Carolina as reasons utilities and regulators elsewhere have moved toward excavation and relocation to lined landfills or beneficial reuse. Sherry Saunders, speaking as an environmentalist and resident near the Mulberry Fork, urged stronger state oversight and said Alabama lacks a statewide dam-safety program that could independently review ash impoundments.

Other speakers asked for more public information and monitoring: Tom Arnold, a Rattlesnake Lake resident, asked for publicly available maps of toxin concentrations, groundwater-monitoring-well locations, and periodic updates; Jackie Franklin, another resident, urged denial of the permit and said leaving the ash “is toxic to the public and to animals.”

No formal votes or actions were taken at the hearing. Multiple commenters said they will submit written technical comments by the public comment deadline. The hearing moderator advised that, unless otherwise notified, the public comment period would close at 5:00 p.m. in December 2021 and that the department will consider oral and written comments before making its determination and preparing responses to relevant comments.