Quantcast
Don't Miss
Home / MLW News Roundup / Group worried about contamination at coal-fired power plant

Group worried about contamination at coal-fired power plant

Mariel Nanasi paused while driving up to the San Juan Generating Station to take a picture.

Since 2008, she has been fighting to get the plant closed, and Oct. 28 was her first time stepping onto the property. Nanasi is the executive director of the Santa Fe-based environmental advocacy group New Energy Economy.

“It’s been a long time coming, but we’re welcoming the closure of the plant in 2022,” Nanasi said.

While New Energy Economy supports plans to close the power plant, Nanasi has concerns about how nearly half a century of coal-fired generation has impacted the land and water. She filed a motion with the New Mexico Public Regulation Commission to get access to the power plant site.

In mid-October, the commission ordered the Public Service Company of New Mexico to grant her access along with her expert witness, Mark Hutson — a geologist who studies contamination at sites like the San Juan Generating Station.

Nanasi and Hutson visited the site with Farmington activist David Fosdeck and former San Juan Generating Station employee Norman Norvelle.

She said her visit to the site was an attempt to understand the processes at the San Juan Generating Station.

PNM spokesman Raymond Sandoval said Nanasi’s visit is an opportunity for the utility to clarify some of the misunderstandings and he hopes both parties will be better off following the visit.

“We were happy to have them there because hopefully this will lead to some clarity,” Sandoval said, adding that he hopes New Energy Economy could get many of its questions answered during the tour.

While the PRC does not have the authority to order Westmoreland Coal Company to let Nanasi visit the adjacent San Juan Mine, the company allowed her to visit the mine site following the power plant tour and Westmoreland officials answered questions about coal ash disposal at the mine.

Nanasi said she is concerned about what level of contamination could be in the soil and water.

“We want PNM to be responsible for the cleanup and not ratepayers,” Nanasi said.

Nanasi’s motion came as the PRC considers PNM’s application to close the power plant and refinance past investments in the plant using a tool known as securitization. This would provide PNM with low-interest bonds that would be paid by ratepayers.

Securitization became possible when Gov. Michelle Lujan Grisham signed the Energy Transition Act into law. The act requires PNM to spend up to $30 million of the bond money for reclamation and decommissioning.

Mariel Nanasi with the environmental advocacy group New Energy Economy, geologist Mark Hutson and power plant employee Norman Norvelle looking at a sealed pond at San Juan Generating Station in Waterflow, N.M. While New Energy Economy supports plans to close the power plant, Nanasi has concerns about how nearly half a century of coal-fired generation has impacted the land and water. She filed a motion with the New Mexico Public Regulation Commission to get access to the power plant site. Photo by Hannah Grover of The Daily Times via AP

Mariel Nanasi with the environmental advocacy group New Energy Economy, geologist Mark Hutson and power plant employee Norman Norvelle looking at a sealed pond at San Juan Generating Station in Waterflow, N.M. While New Energy Economy supports plans to close the power plant, Nanasi has concerns about how nearly half a century of coal-fired generation has impacted the land and water. She filed a motion with the New Mexico Public Regulation Commission to get access to the power plant site. Photo by Hannah Grover of The Daily Times via AP

Nanasi wants PNM shareholders to foot that bill instead.

“We believe that is a very important part of corporate accountability,” she said.

Sandoval said shareholders will be foregoing $109 million of future profits if the utility is able to use securitization. He said securitization ensures the shareholders recover past investment, but does not allow them to profit.

However, there’s debate about whether the Energy Transition Act can legally be applied to the case. If it doesn’t apply, PNM cannot use securitization. Sandoval said that could put Nanasi in a better position to argue for shareholders footing the bill.

After the tour, Hutson said there wasn’t anything that immediately stood out to him as cause for alarm, but he will need to evaluate the data before he makes any conclusions.

“I was just looking to see how things are located in comparison to other things,” he said.

The PRC ordered PNM to allow New Energy Economy to take soil and water samples as the advocacy group seeks to prove the San Juan Generating Station has had negative effects on human health and the environment.

PNM brought in a team of contractors to join New Energy Economy on the tour and take samples as well.

During the hours they spent at the San Juan Generating Station and surrounding areas, New Energy Economy took a sample from a single site — water from the Shumway Arroyo. This sample was taken on Bureau of Land Management property a short distance from the San Juan Generating Station site. Nanasi had previously visited the location in May.

PNM’s contractors took a water sample from the same location to send to a lab for independent analysis. Both samples will be tested for metals associated with coal combustion.

PNM Environmental Manager John Hale said when the San Juan Generating Station was first built in the mid-1970s, the Shumway Arroyo was used for discharge from the power plant. In the 1980s, PNM was sued over the practice. That resulted in PNM changing its practices. Instead of discharging into the arroyo, the utility began using evaporation ponds to dispose of wastewater from the operations.

Hale said the San Juan Generating Station is now a zero-discharge facility.

There is little data about water quality in the Shumway Arroyo prior to the 1970s. Hale said the U.S. Geological Survey conducted some tests prior to the plant being built. Those tests indicated water quality in the arroyo is naturally not great.

Hale said there have been incidents over the years where equipment at the power plant has malfunctioned or broken, leading to leaks, seeps and spills. These are reported to the New Mexico Environment Department.

While Hale said he has never seen an incident where wastewater from the plant left the San Juan Generating Station site, he said there have been several smaller incidents.

This year, PNM has reported incidents to NMED, Hale said.

In one instance, a pipe transporting processed water got a hole in it, according to Plant Manager Omni Warner. He said PNM excavated the soil to remove any potential contamination and repaired the line.

Warner and Hale said they do not believe any of this year’s incidents could have impacted groundwater.

In 2008, PNM built a groundwater recovery system to monitor for potential impacts. This system went online in 2010 and PNM officials say they haven’t seen signs of water quality changing in that time.

After visiting the site, Nanasi expressed concern about a pipe being removed on the Shumway Arroyo. This pipe, which PNM describes as a culvert, allowed people to drive over the arroyo. Nanasi questioned if the pipeline was removed to prevent New Energy Economy from accessing sites.

Within hours of leaving the power plant, Nanasi filed a document with the PRC requesting additional documents from PNM, including communications about the removal of that pipe.

Hale said the culvert was installed to facilitate construction of a pump-back pipeline transporting water to the evaporation ponds. He said the culvert allowed construction crews to drive over the Shumway Arroyo without damaging water quality. This portion of the arroyo is located on Bureau of Land Management property and Hale said the lease with the BLM required PNM to remove the pipe and restore the land back to the way it was before construction began.

“We’ve got to put the arroyo back the way it was, so we can’t just leave the (culvert) in there because it wasn’t that way before,” Hale said.

Documents provided by PNM show the culvert was removed on June 22.

In addition to information regarding that culvert, Nanasi requested data from PNM’s groundwater recovery system monitoring as well as all documentation of leaks or contamination at the plant since 2005.

MOLW_newSubscription_web

Order Reprints

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

*