• E-Mail
• Print
• Larger
• Smaller

Published: Thursday, Mar. 04, 2010 / Updated: Tuesday, Mar. 23, 2010 04:12 PM

Charlotte Observer: Time for faster action on coal ash handling

Until little more than a year ago, most people had no idea that storage of coal ash left over from generating power might become a big environment and public health problem. That was before a dam burst in Tennessee that allowed toxic sludge to flood the countryside near Kingston, Tenn., ruining the nearby landscape and prompting reviews by state and federal regulators and environmental advocacy groups of the potential danger elsewhere.

The EPA last year said there were 70 coal ash sites around the country known to have contaminated groundwater. The EPA said 44 of them were high-hazard sites that posed threats to human life if ash pond dams failed - and 13 of those are in North Carolina.

That was unsettling enough, but now two environmental advocacy groups have examined more data and concluded there are 31 more sites with contamination than previously believed, including six more in North Carolina. The Environmental Integrity Project and Earthjustice said that arsenic and other toxic metals were found at concentrations of up to 145 times the maximum permissible under federal standards.

The groups said their findings, combined with the EPA's earlier disclosures, should prompt the agency to impose new but delayed rules that regulate the millions of tons of ash that coal-burning utility plants produce each year.

“The pollution present in this waste is among the earth's most harmful to aquatic life and humans - arsenic, lead, selenium, cadmium and other heavy metals, which cause cancer and crippling neurological damage,” said Donna Lisenby, the Upper Watauga Riverkeeper and former Catawba Riverkeeper. “If these poisons can be kept out of the fish we eat, the water we drink, bathe in, and need to survive, simply through regulation, then we must take that long overdue step.”

She's right. The reports of additional contamination at N.C. sites, such as Duke's Belews Creek power plant, suggest that state and federal officials have not been as aggressive as they should in monitoring pollution, informing the public about hazards and taking appropriate steps to safeguard water supplies.

But it's also true that utility companies have cooperated with government officials to test groundwater and make sure contamination doesn't spread. Duke Energy, for example, has developed a new ash landfill that will use liners to minimize the opportunity for leaks. And until last year, North Carolina did not have a strong regulatory program for ash ponds, and utilities here had had no major spills.

A Duke spokesman, Andy Thompson, suggested the environmental groups “have an agenda.” Well, of course they do. It's to protect the environment from industrial pollution. Duke has an agenda. It's to produce power as cheaply as it can, serve its customers and reward its shareholders. That's appropriate.

We have an agenda, too: It's to call public attention to reports that show there's more pollution than previously revealed and to press federal and state regulators to determine the level of hazard and take steps to make sure public health is protected. It's time for regulators to take action.