Feds in pursuit of felony in N.C. spill
RALEIGH — Federal authorities have begun a criminal investigation into a coal ash spill into a North Carolina river, demanding that Duke Energy and state regulators hand over reams of documents related to the accident that left a waterway polluted with tons of toxic sludge.
The U.S. Attorney's Office in Raleigh issued grand jury subpoenas seeking records from Duke and the North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources. The subpoenas seek emails, memos and reports related to the Feb. 2 spill into the Dan River and the state's oversight of the company's 30 other coal ash dumps in North Carolina.
The Associated Press obtained a copy on Thursday of the subpoena issued to the state through a public records request.
“An official criminal investigation of a suspected felony is being conducted by an agency of the United States and a federal grand jury,” said a cover letter accompanying the subpoena, which was dated Monday and signed by a criminal prosecutor.
The exact crime and precisely who is being targeted for potential prosecution is not spelled out in the document.
A Duke spokesman confirmed the nation's largest electricity provider had also received a subpoena.
Thomas Walker, the U.S. attorney for the Eastern District of North Carolina, said he could not comment on the subpoenas.
The spill at a Duke Energy plant in Eden spewed enough toxic sludge to fill 73 Olympic-sized pools, turning the river water a milky gray for miles. It was the third-largest coal ash spill in U.S. history.
Show commenting policy
TribLive commenting policy
You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.
We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.
While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.
We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers.
We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.
We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.
We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.
We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.
- California man beaten by deputies on video faces charges
- Dinosaurs may have been warm-blooded after all
- Pataki formally opens White House bid, 8th from GOP
- Former GOP House Speaker Hastert indicted in banking violation
- ‘Mind was falling apart,’ suspect in Colorado theater killing spree says in taped interview
- Growth potential remains for online gambling
- Baltimore gets bloodier as arrests drop post-riots
- Defense chief says U.S. can fly over South China Sea
- Army lab sent at least 1 live batch of anthrax
- Coal’s worst fears affirmed in analysis of Obama climate plan
- Parks threatened by dispute over renewal