news-record.com

RALEIGH — An effort to more tightly regulate material left over from burning coal to create power faces stiff opposition in the General Assembly, despite a massive December coal ash spill in Tennessee.

Coal ash can either be wet and stored in ponds or as a powder. Both forms can contain arsenic, lead, selenium and other toxic substances, researchers say.

“If the public understood the situation, they would scream for some regulations on this stuff,” said Rep. Pricey Harrison, a Greensboro Democrat who has introduced legislation that would more tightly control how coal ash is stored, disposed of or used in commercial applications.

In December, a Tennessee Valley Authority dam broke, releasing more than a billion gallons of toxic coal ash sludge into nearby communities and waterways.

Although none are as big as the TVA pond, Duke and Progress Energy have 14 coal ash ponds next to power plants throughout the state. They include Duke’s Dan River Steam Station in Eden and Belews Creek Steam Station in Stokes County.

“We work excellently with Duke Energy,” said Eden City Manager Brad Corcoran. “They communicate very well with us.” He said the town had no problems or concerns with Duke’s coal ash pond or other operations.

Among the provisions in Harrison’s bill, dams creating coal ash ponds would be subject to closer regulation by the state, including direct inspections.

Currently, power companies are only required to file reports by private engineers with the Public Utilities Commission every five years.

A 2007 report on the Dan River steam station found that a recommended but voluntary regimen of annual inspections had not been followed since 2001. A follow-up report in 2009 told regulators that “a potentially serious seepage problem” had been addressed.

Harrison’s bill would also tighten other regulations on how coal ash and other by-products are used in manufacturing concrete and other construction products or as fill material for roadbeds and large landscaping projects. It would also restrict the construction of new coal ash ponds.

“The bill is a thinly veiled attempt to shut down coal-fired power plants by taking away the ability to store coal combustion products,” said Scott Sutton, an environmental communication specialist for Progress Energy. “We don’t believe there is support in the General Assembly for legislation that raises consumer costs, jeopardizes reliability and hampers utilities’ ability to meet emission standards.”

Sutton said if storing the byproducts of building coal became more expensive or impossible, it would ultimately increase the rates people paid for electricity.

Although Harrison has sponsored other legislation that would restrict what kind of coal the industry could use and would curtail the construction of new coal-fired plants, she said her intent was not to regulate them out of existence.

“That’s crazy,” Harrison said. “That’s not it at all. It’s entirely a public health and environmental issue for me.”

Duke spokesman Jason Walls was more circumspect in his evaluation of the bill.

“We are aware of the bill, and our internal experts continue to review it,” he said. “It’s still early in the legislative process.”

That process may be slow. The bill is assigned to the House Public Utilities Committee but has no hearing date set.

“I’m not sure whether we’ll hear it or not,” said Rep. Lorene Coates, a Salisbury Democrat and the committee chairwoman.

She said the committee has other business it needs to tend to, including a bill regulating how and when cities can offer residents Internet services directly.

“I have heard from some members of the committee that it is very controversial,” she said.

But members of the committee interviewed Thursday, including Reps. Bruce Goforth of Asheville, Harold Brubaker of Asheboro, Bill Faison of Durham and Hugh Holliman of Lexington, said they had heard nothing good or bad about it.

Federal regulators have considered issuing rules on how to handle coal ash , but there is no federal standard. The EPA has signaled that it might again try to issue rules but determined as recently as 2008 that coal ash didn’t need to be handled as a hazardous material.

“It’s not easy, but it shouldn’t be ignored because it’s not the easiest thing to do,” said Chandra Taylor, a lawyer with the Southern Environmental Law Center. She said North Carolina should step in while the federal government decides what it wants to do.

Although there is regulation of coal ash ponds and dry ash disposal in North Carolina, it is far from comprehensive, Taylor said.

The state’s division of water quality, for example, sets the rule for when water from the ponds can be siphoned off to be used in cooling the power plant or released into nearby streams. But Taylor argues there is no one agency overseeing coal ash and no rules making sure toxins from the ash don’t seep into water tables.

Landfills taking garbage collected from houses every day have to be lined with waterproof material to prevent such contamination, she said. No such rule exists for coal ash.

“This stuff can’t go unregulated just because it’s more expensive or more difficult to store it,” Taylor said.

Contact Mark Binker at (919) 832-5549 or mark.binker@news-record.com