ShareThis Page
World

Heavy metals found in river after Florence caused coal plant dam to burst

| Thursday, Oct. 4, 2018, 6:45 p.m.

RALEIGH, N.C. — Despite the gray muck that fouled the Cape Fear River near a Wilmington power plant after Hurricane Florence, water tests so far show heavy metals contained in coal ash are within state standards, North Carolina environmental officials said Thursday.

Water quality samples collected over four dates within two weeks of Florence crashing ashore a few miles away from Duke Energy Corp.’s Sutton power plant found no excessive levels of arsenic, lead, chromium and other metals, the state Department of Environmental Quality said.

The state’s test results aligned with the samples Duke Energy collected and tested at an in-house lab. They showed no negative impacts to the river after a dam breached at the company’s Sutton power plant, the company said. The state’s initial test results demonstrate “that Cape Fear River quality is not harmed by Sutton plant operations,” Duke Energy spokeswoman Paige Sheehan said.

The Wilmington area received more than 30 inches (75 centimeters) of rain from Florence before the swollen river rose to its crest and remained at flood stage for days.

Floodwaters breached several points in the earthen dam at Sutton Lake, the plant’s 1,100-acre (445-hectare) reservoir. Lake water then flooded one of three large coal ash dumps lining the lakeshore.

The ash left over when coal is burned to generate electricity contains a range of potentially toxic heavy metals. The plant’s inundated basin contained about 400,000 cubic yards (305,820 cubic meters) of ash, Duke Energy said.

The country’s second-largest electric company had described the gray material seen floating in the lake and river as “coal combustion byproducts.”

A spokesman for Earthjustice, an environmental advocacy group that launched a boat into the river within a week of the breach to collect its own samples, said the reported test results aren’t conclusive. The impact of the flooding at the former coal-burning power plant can’t be known until the river bottom is tested for pollutants that are likely to linger in the sediment, Earthjustice attorney Peter Harrison said.

“It would be reckless to claim that there have been no impacts to the lake and river, no ongoing threat, and no release of coal ash, without thoroughly evaluating the sediment,” Harrison said in an email.

The state environmental agency on Monday reported that sludge washed from buried coal-ash pits at Duke Energy’s H.F. Lee power plant in Goldsboro also hadn’t polluted a neighboring river with heavy metals at levels concerning to human health.

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.

click me