Lydia Lambert - Re: Fwd: Fw: FYI - BNA today - Groundwater Violations Found 

Near All 14 North Carolina Power Plants With Ash Ponds 

 

----- Forwarded by Ronald Jordan/DC/USEPA/US on 01/26/2012 09:04 AM 

----- 

From:Greg Spraul/DC/USEPA/US 

To:Robert Wood/DC/USEPA/US@EPA, Ronald Jordan/DC/USEPA/US@EPA 

Date:01/26/2012 08:58 AM 

Subject:FYI - BNA today - Groundwater Violations Found Near All 14 

 North Carolina Power Plants With Ash Ponds 

Water Pollution 

Groundwater Violations Found Near All 14 North Carolina Power Plants 

With Ash Ponds 

By Andrew M. Ballard 

RALEIGH, N.C.—Groundwater contamination has been found near coal ash 

ponds at all 14 of North Carolina's coal-fired power plants, a 

spokeswoman for the state Department of Environment and Natural 

Resources told Bloomberg BNA Jan. 24. 

According to Susan Massengale, state groundwater standards for allowable 

levels of iron and manganese were found to be exceeded at all of the 

facilities, as was low pH (acidity). Groundwater monitoring also found 

concentrations of total dissolved solids and chromium near seven of the 

coal-fired plants to be higher than the levels in the state's standards, 

and boron levels were exceeded at six of the facilities, she said. 

Groundwater at certain facilities also showed excessive levels of 

arsenic, selenium, thallium, antimony, chloride, and nickel, Massengale 

told BNA. 

Working to Find Source of Pollution 

State regulators are analyzing the information and working to determine 

the potential source of the pollution, according to Massengale. If the 

source of contamination is found to be an ash pond or other on-site 

activity, corrective action will be required, she said. 

Duke Energy and Progress Energy own all of the coal-fired power plants 

at issue, with each utility owning seven facilities. The two companies 

are seeking to merge and have agreed to accelerate the closure of some 

of the combined company's coal-fired generating capacity when the deal 

is closed (30 DEN A-5, 2/14/11). 

Coal ash storage and disposal has received more attention by regulators 

and the public following a December 2008 spill at the Tennessee Valley 

Authority's Kingston, Tenn., facility, after the failure of a retention 

pond wall. About 5.4 million cubic yards of coal ash sludge were 

released into nearby land and waters in that spill (250 DEN A-4, 

12/31/08). 

The federal Environmental Protection Agency proposed revisions to 

regulations covering ash handling and storage in May 2010 but has not 

From: Lydia Lambert

To: Bubb, Kristi

Subject: Re: Fwd: Fw: FYI - BNA today - Groundwater Violations Found Near All 14 North Carolina Power 

Plants With Ash Ponds

Page 1 of 3

about:blank 5/31/2012
issued final rules. Environmental groups recently announced their 

intention to sue over the rulemaking delay (11 DEN A-2, 1/19/12). 

Well Locations Recently Changed 

According to Massengale, the utilities had been voluntarily monitoring 

for several contaminants for a few years before the monitoring wells 

were relocated at the request of the state regulatory agency. Monitoring 

plans are now required, and samples from each well must be taken three 

times per year, she said. 

The samples at issue were taken over the past year at the new locations, 

Massengale told Bloomberg BNA. Sufficient sampling has now taken place 

for some patterns to emerge, and further analysis is needed to determine 

the sources of contamination, she said. 

Some of the metals at issue occur naturally in North Carolina, and some 

of the contamination could be historical or come from a source other 

than the ash ponds, due to the nature of the power plant sites, 

according to Massengale. 

No Threat to Health or Safety Seen 

Utility representatives said they have been working closely with state 

regulators to help determine the impact and sources of the contamination 

that has been found. They assert that there is no indication of a threat 

to public health or safety at this time. 

Rita Sipe, a spokeswoman for Duke Energy, said the majority of the 

elevated levels of metal contamination found near her company's ash 

basins were for iron and manganese, which are naturally occurring in the 

region in which the plants are located. 

“Although these constituents are also present in coal ash, it is 

difficult to determine if the exceedances are a result of natural 

conditions, coal ash, or some combination thereof,” she told Bloomberg 

BNA. 

“Exceedances of the groundwater standards for some other metals were 

also observed, although at a much lower frequency,” Sipe said. “In these 

cases, some levels have dropped below the [state] standards since the 

initial sampling, and these initial exceedances are likely due to 

suspended particles from the well installation process and naturally 

occurring concentrations in soil.” 

Consistent With Past Monitoring 

Scott Sutton, a spokesman for Progress Energy, said the samples “are not 

materially new or different than we've seen” since groundwater 

monitoring began on a voluntary basis in 2006. The difference is the 

location of the monitoring wells, he said. 

According to Sutton, monitoring results often fluctuate and can change 

due to weather conditions, sampling techniques used, and many other 

factors. New wells also can show contamination from the process of 

drilling them, he said. 

However, Sutton told Bloomberg BNA that “we do see there are some metals 

that tend to come from [coal] ash like boron.” Although there is no 

indication of a threat to public health and safety, “we do understand 

there are concerns about coal ash,” he said. 

According to both Sipe and Sutton, the utilities are working closely 

with state regulators to better understand the source and impact of the 

contamination that was found and continue to provide monitoring results. 

_______________ 

Greg Spraul 

Congressional Liaison 

Water, Pesticides, and Toxics Team 

Page 2 of 3

about:blank 5/31/2012
Office of Congressional Affairs 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 

email: spraul.greg@epa.gov 

Ph: 202.564.0255 

Page 3 of 3

about:blank 5/31/2012