### Lydia Lambert - Re: Fwd: Fw: FYI - BNA today - Groundwater Violations Found Near All 14 North Carolina Po wer 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 contaminat ion has been found near coal ash ponds at all 14 of North Carolina's coal-fired power plants, a spokeswoman for the state Departme nt 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 fo und to be exceeded at all of the facilities, as was low pH (acidity). Groundwater monitoring also found concentrations of total dissolved so lids 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 al so 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 in formation 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 re ceived 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 wa ters 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 Viol ations Found Near All 14 North Carolina Power Plants With Ash Ponds 

### Pa g e 1 of 3

5/31/2012 about:blan kissued final rules. Environmental groups recently announced their intention to sue over the rulema king delay (11 DEN A-2, 1/19/12). Well Locations Recently Changed According to Massengale, the utilitie s had been voluntarily monitoring for several contaminants for a few years before the monitoring wells were relocated at the request of th e 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. Suffic ient sampling has now taken place for some patterns to emerge, and furt her 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 histor ical or come from a source other than the ash ponds, due to the na ture 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 impa ct 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 contamin ation 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 exceed ances are a result of natural conditions, coal ash, or some comb ination thereof,” she told Bloomberg
BNA. “Exceedances of the groundwater stan dards 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 ba sis in 2006. The difference is the location of the monitoring wells, he said. According to Sutton, monitoring resu lts 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] as h 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 under stand the source and impact of the contamination that was found and conti nue to provide monitoring results.

_______________ Greg Spraul Congressional Liaison Water, Pesticides, and Toxics Team 

### Pa g e 2 of 3

5/31/2012 about:blan kOffice of Congressional Affairs U.S. Environmental Protection Agency email: spraul.greg@epa.gov Ph: 202.564.0255 

### Pa g e 3 of 3

5/31/2012 about:blan k