Congressman disappointed in EPA's pace with coal ash report

Posted to: Environment News
Login or register to post comments

By Louis Hansen
The Virginian-Pilot
© December 12, 2009

CHESAPEAKE

U.S. Rep. Randy Forbes is pushing for quicker release of an EPA study of potential contamination from coal ash buried at Battlefield Golf Club.

Forbes sent a letter this week to an EPA assistant administrator asking for the release of a preliminary evaluation of the golf course, which was built with 1.5 million tons of treated coal ash. The evaluation, Forbes said in his letter, "could indicate a direct and present threat to the health of many of the constituents" in his district.

Forbes made his announcement after the House Subcommittee on Energy and Environment met Thursday to consider disposal of coal ash, a waste product from coal-burning power plants, and its effect on the environment.

More than 400 people have sued Dominion Virginia Power, saying the company and developers buried coal ash in their community despite warnings from consultants that it would eventually contaminate drinking water.

Robyn Pierce, one of the plaintiffs, told the committee that her home has been tested multiple times by three agencies in the past 19 months with inconsistent and confusing results. Lead levels have been detected in excess of three times the EPA action standard, she said. Pierce said she worried about the future health of her children and neighbors.

"The financial ramifications are devastating," Pierce told the committee, according to a transcript. "We are literally held hostage in our homes not at the barrel of a gun but by the cesspool of poisons in our backyards."

Lisa Evans, an attorney for the environmental group Earthjustice, testified that wells tested near the unlined site had elevated levels of lead, arsenic, chromium and boron.

"Communities are harmed when coal ash is disposed without proper safeguards or when ash is carelessly reused," she said, according to the transcript of the hearing.

Forbes, a member of the subcommittee, said in an interview that families suffered from a lack of clarity about the health risks and levels of contamination.

Forbes added that he was frustrated by the EPA's slow pace and wanted them to join with the city and residents to address the problem.

An EPA spokeswoman did not immediately respond to questions Friday.

In an interview with "60 Minutes," EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson said the agency is reviewing the toxicity and management of coal ash. She said the agency will make a regulatory proposal on the material "no later than December."

Forbes, R-4th District, said more information is needed to determine whether coal ash should be considered hazardous. But he said the material needs "some degree of regulation."

Louis Hansen, (757) 222-5221, louis.hansen@pilotonline.com

COMMENTS ADVISORY: Users are solely responsible for opinions they post here; comments do not reflect the views of The Virginian-Pilot or its websites. Users must follow agreed-upon rules: Be civil, be clean, be on topic; don't attack private individuals, other users or classes of people. Read the full rules here.
- Comments are automatically checked for inappropriate language, but readers might find some comments offensive or inaccurate. If you believe a comment violates our rules, click the report violation link below it.

Just wondering

Submitted by commonsenseguy on Sat, 12/12/2009 at 8:56 am.

I wonder if the levels of lead, arsenic, chromium and boron that Earthjustice indicated were detected in wells near the site were elevated above regulatory action levels or just elevated above typical background levels. There is a huge difference and it is interesting that it wasn't made clear. This is really a way of misrepresenting the data (see Climate Change). One might assume that if the levels detected were above action levels that Earthjustice would want to make it well (no pun intended) known.

You have confused lying with the truth

Submitted by Mr. Wizard on Sat, 12/12/2009 at 11:54 am.

"This is really a way of misrepresenting the data (see Climate Change)"

You have misrepresented science by your assertion. You need to understand the definition of facts. Once you do that you will see that your statement is false.

Next time, don't call scientists untruthful to base an argument.

please be more specific

Submitted by commonsenseguy on Sat, 12/12/2009 at 12:13 pm.

No "facts" as you describe them were presented in the article and my statements are completely true based on sound science. They have presented no useable data - by their own assertion, the water data for several sampling events conducted by different agencies at Robyn Pierce's house was "inconsistent and confusing" and therefore can't be relied upon to draw any conclusions from it.

Specifically

Submitted by Mr. Wizard on Sat, 12/12/2009 at 5:03 pm.

Thanks for your response.

Please explain what this means and how it relates to the environment?

"This is really a way of misrepresenting the data (see Climate Change)."

Mr. Wizard, do you wonder if

Submitted by beetle-juice on Sat, 12/12/2009 at 9:44 pm.

Mr. Wizard, do you wonder if the Blackberry's that all these naysayers use would be possible if it weren't for bozo scientists? Or that the science behind them had to be virtually 100% accurate for them to work?
It never ceases to amaze me that some people will acknowledge science when it compliments their life, yet ignore it when it doesn't.

What's even worse is when

Submitted by hurdboy on Sat, 12/12/2009 at 10:35 am.

What's even worse is when the Chinese use it to make drywall. Numbers have absolutely no significance in Congress these days, and NIMBY pandering to fearmongers is always a better formula for success.